Skip to main content

Full text of "Church Association tracts"

See other formats

BV 4510 .Al C48 1865 v. 3 
Church Association tracts 

Cbu rcb . . 



To uphold the Doctrines. Principles, and Order of the United Church of 

England and Ireland, and to counteract the efforts now being made 

to pervert her teaching on essential points of the Christian 

faith, or assimilate her Services to those of the Church 

of Rome, and further to encourage concerted 

action for the advancement and progress 

of Spiritual Religion. 

Office — 14, Buckingham Strekt, Strano, London, W.C. 
Secretary — Mr. Henry Miller. 


The Seceetaey will be happy to supply Members of the Associa- 
tion with a small number of any of the following numbered 
Tracts free for gratuitous circulation, and Non-Members at 
the prices marked against them. 

A set of the Tracts (1 to 300) bound in 6 volumes, at 1^ per vol.. or 
post free 6s 9d ; in cloth at l.s- 0(/ per vol.. or post free 9s lOd. 
These form a complete Library on the iiitualistic Controversy, 
and should be in the hands of every Protestant Churchman. 



1 Must we Confess? By the Van. Archd. Taylor, d.d., ll.d.* 

'2 The Christian Priesthood. By the Ven. Archd. Taylor, 

D.D., LL.D.* 

3 Prayers for the Dead. By the Yen. Archd. Taylor, d.d., ll.u.* 

4 The Teaching of the Ritualists not the Teaching of 

the Church of England. f 

5 Evening Communion. By the late Rev. Canon R. p. 

BlaKKNET, D.U., LL.D.* 

6 Gospel Freedom and Priestly Tyranny.! 

7 The Dogmatic Teaching of Bible Truths. By the late 

Rev. Cauon Gakbett, ji.a.* 

8 The Priesthood of the Lord Jesus Christ, and of His 

Members. What is it ? f 

9 [ Will not he reprinted. See Tract 259.] 

10 [Will not he reprinted. See Tract 2,59.] 

11 {^Out of print. Will not he reprinted.~\ 

12 The Falsification of History, especially in reference to 

the Reformation. By the late Rev. Dr. Boi:ltbee.§ 

13 {Out of print. Will not he reprinted.'^ 

14 \_Out of print. Will not he reprinted.] 

1 5 Episcopal Condemnations of Ritualism.! 

16 Is there Popery in the Prayer Book, Historically 

considered ? By the late Rev. Dr. Buultbee.§ 

** Id per dozen, or (i(i per 100. i\ Sd per dozen, or 4s per 100. 
\\ 2d per dozen, or Is per 100. 5 Sd per dozen, or 4s Hd per 100. 

■ 3d per dozen, or Is ilrf per 100. B lOd per dozen, or 6s per 100. 

: 3d per dozen, or 2s per 100. 11 2ci each, or 12s per 100. 

t 5d per dozen, or 3s per 100. 

A single copy of any of the Tracts Id, unless otherwise stated. 


17 The Helation of Soundness in the Faith to Spirituality 

in the Life. By the Ven. Archd. Richardson, M.A.f 

18 Guilds. By the Rev. G. W. Weldon, m.a.§ 

19 Spiritual and Evangelical Religion.— The best means for the 

Advancement of. By the Rev. Talbot A. L. Greaves.* 

20 Ritualism and Ritualism. Why some ought to be supported 

and some condemned. By the Ven. Archd. Richardson, M.A.f 

21 Hymns Ancient and Modern, and their Romanizing Teaching. 

By the Rev. James Ormiston.|| 

22 The ''' Gainsaying of Core ? " By the Rev. Dr. Waller.! 

23 Incense. By the Rev. Helt H. Smith.* 

24 The Bishop of Bath and Wells on the Ritualists.* 

25 The Real Presence. By the Ven. Archd. Taylor, d.d., ll.d.* 

26 The Counter-Reformation Movement and How to 

meet it. By the Rev. A. Baring-Gould, M.A.f 

27 Voices of the Church of England on Auricular 

Confession. f 

28 Confession and Forgiveness of Sins. By Rev. Dr 


29 What Mean ye bj this Service ? § 

30 The Eastward Position. No. l. By the Rev. Canon Rtle.* 

[Late B^D. of Liverpool.] 

31 Perilof Idolatry and Superfluous Deckingof Churches * 

32 Public Worship Regulation Act.§ 

33 Distinctive "Vestments. By the Rev. Canon RYLE.f [Late 

Bp. of Liverpool.] 

34 Privy Council Judgment on 

35 Eastward Position, Privy Council Judgment on.f 
3f) Wafer-Bread, Privy Council Judgment on.* 

37 The Eastward Position. By the Rev. C. Dallas Marston, 


38 Vestments. By the late Leonard Rowe Valpy, Esq.f 

39 The Lord's Supper. A.D. 1674. (Illustrated.)* 

40 Exeter Reredos Case. Judgment of the Privy Council. § 

41 Address to Churchwardens- P. W. R. Act.* 

42 The Errors of Ritualism have their source in the 

Unregenerate Human Heart By the late Rev. C. J. Gooohart, m.a.* 

43 The present Tactics of the Ritualists and how to 

meet them. By the Ven. Archd. Taylor, d.d., LL.D.f 

44 [Out of print. Will not he reprinted.'\ 

45 The Sacrificial Vestments,— Reasons Against. By the 

Rev. Canon R. V. Blakeney, d.d., ll d.* 

46 The Eastward Position, — Reasons Against. By the Rev. 

Canon R. P. Blakeney, d.d., ll.d-* 

47 [Out of print. Will not he reprinted.] 

48 The Past Action of the Church Association, and 

the importance of maintaining it in increased efKciency in the future. 
By the Rev. G. W. Weldon, m.a.|| 

49 The Church of England is Protestant. Historical 

Testimony. By L P. Fleming, Esq., m.a., d.c.l.^ 

50 The Nature of Christian Worship. By the Rev. Canon 

Bell, m.a.§ 
61 The Importance of the Issues at Stake in the Legal 
I'roceedings of the Church Association. By the Rev.Dr. Bardsley.P 



52 Special Missions and Services ; their Advantages 

and Dangers. By the Veu. Arclid. Hichakdson, m.a.j 

53 Ritualism ; Extent of the Outbreak and Need of More 

Earnest Action on the Pint of the J^aity. By J. Bateman, 
Esq., F.R.S.* 

54 Branch Associations— How best can their action 

be broufiht into clovr connection with that of the Council, By 
Jasies Inskii', Estj.t 

55 Reasons for opposing Ritualism. By the Rev. Canon 

Kyle, d.d.* [Non- Bp. of I^iverpool.] 

56 What do we owe to the Reformation? By tlie Rev. 

Canon Kyi.k, d.d. [Now Bp. of Liverpool.] '2d each, 6s per 100. 

57 Absolution and Confession. The Mind of the Church 

of England as shown in the Homilies f 

58 [Out of print. Will not be reprinted. See Tract 259.] 

59 Church Armour. By the Ven. Arclid. TAYLOR.t 

60 Ridsdale Judgment: Testimony it affords to the 

Protestant character of the Church ot England. By the Rev. G. W. 


61 What practical course of action should now be 

taken to give effect to the various Judgmeats / By Rev. Canon 
Kyle, d.d.§ [^P- •'• Liverpool.] 

62 Episcopal Responsibility. The advisability of the 

issue of Visitation Articles. By I. P. Flk.ming, Esq., m.a., d.c.l.|| 

63 The Confessional, the best means of arousing and 

sustaining public opinion on the subject. By the Ven. Archd. 
Taylor, d.d.I 

64 Theological instruction of candidates for the Ministry. 

By the Rev. Canon R. P. Blakeney, D.D.f 

65 [Out of print. Will not be reprinted.] 

66 The Gown in the Pulpit. By the Rev. William Fleming, ll.b.^ 

67 Ritualism : A Romeward Movement.* 

68 The Distinctive Principles of the Church of England. 

By the Rev. Canon Kyle, d.d.I [Novv Bp. of Liverpool.] 

69 The Administration of the Law— The Present Aspect 

of, relative to Ecclesiastical Offences. By James Inskip, P>sq.§ 

70 Evangelical Churchmen True Churchmen. By the 

Rev. Ijr Bardslev.jI 

71 Church Architecture: its Proper Relation to Simple 

Christian Worship. By the late A. R. Pite, Ksq.§ 

72 The Ritualistic Conspiracy— The True History of.t 
/3 Dean Burgon's Letter to Canon Gregory.§ 

74 The Rights of the Laity— Existing Tendencies to 

encroach on. By L P. Fleming. Esq., .m.a.. d.c.l.|| 

75 Secret Societies. By the Kev. Hely Huiciuxson Smith, m.a.|| 

76 Evangelical Protestantism. The only s^xre means 

of resisting superstition and infidelity. By the Kev. Canon Clayton. § 

77 The Rights of the Laity imperilled by the spread 

of Sacerdotalism and the Inaction of the Bishops. ]>v Thomas Smelt, 
Esq. II 

78 Shall we go back to the Prayer Book of 1549 ?§ 

79 Should the Church Association be dissolved or 

strengthened by those who value the English Reformation ?* 


80 Speech of J. M. Holt, Esq., at Willis's Rooms, 8th May, 1883.t 

81 \_Out of print. Will not he reprinted.] 

82 The Reactionary and Retrograde Tendency of Ritualism 

Evidenced by tlie Proposed Kecurrence to the Urst Prayer liook of 
Edward VI. By the Uev. Septimus FIoBBS.f 

83 The Secrets of Ritualism. By Rev. C. H. Wainwright, m.a.§ 

84 The Constitutional Settlement of Church and State.§ 
8J Ritualism Grows; What Next, and Next? By Rev. 

J. W. Johnson, M.A.f 

86 1686 and 1886. By The Rt. Hon. Lord Robert MoNTAOU.t 

87 "Hearing Mass" versus 'The Lord's Supper or Holy Com- 

munion." By J. T. ToMLiNSON.§ 

88 The North Side of the Table. An Historical Enquiry as to 

the Origip and Meaning of the Fourth Rub-ric in the Communion 
Service. By J. T. Tomlinson.^ 

89 Additional Evidence respecting the Ornaments Rubric 

of 1662. By J. T. ToMLiNSON. Part I.|| 

90 The Advertisements of Queen Elizabeth. By J. T. 


91 Altar Lights : Their History and Meaning. By J. T. 

92 The Mixed Chalice. By J. T. Tomlinson.! 

93 Additional Evidence respecting the Ornaments Rubric 

of 1662. By J.T. ToMLiNSON. Part ILf 

94 The Doctrine of a 'Spiritual' Presence as taught by 

the Ritualists. By J. T. ToMUNSON.f 

95 Teaching of the Catechism as to the Lord's Supper. Bv 


96 The Bishops' Veto. By J. T. Tomlinson.§ 

97 Idols in the Church of God. By the Rev. T. J. GAsxER.f 

98 The Misprinted Catechism, or the definition of " this 

word Sacrament '' as now substituted by " privileged '' Printers for 
that of the Church of England. By J. T. Tomlinson.|| 

99 Non-communicating Attendance at Holy Communion. 

The Opinion of Professors of Divinity at Oxford and Cambridge.* 

100 " The Priest and the Privy Council." Contains a reply to 

all the more usual misrepresentations of the Privy Council Judg- 
ments which are put forth from time to time by Ritualists. Price -td. 


101 Are Crucifixes in Churches Lawful ? t 

102 Into their Hands. A plea for the old way of "Taking" the 

Bread at the Holy Communion. By J. T. Tomlinson.§ 

103 Ecclesiastical Prosecutions originated and advocated 

by the English Church Union. f 

104 Jurisdiction of English Metropolitans. Judgment of 

Archbishop of Canterbury in the Lincoln Case.*! 
10.") St. Paul's Reredos Case. Judgment on Bishops' Veto in 
Queen's Bench. ^ 

106 A Defence of the Church Association. A reply to two 

Attacks by Sydney Gedge, Esq. (late m.p., Solicitor to the School 
Board), in the Churchman of May and Sept., 1889.^ 

107 Mr. Jas. Parker's Attack j upon the Judicial Com- 

mittee of the Privy Council, liy . T. Tomlinson.§ 

108 Sheppard v. Bennett. I'rivy Council Judgment.^ 


109 The Dean of Peterborough's Plan. Extracts from a Paper 

by Mr. Chancki.lok Dibdin.-j- 

110 Folkestone RitualJudgment. .^ieach. 

111 The Threatened Revival of Canon Law in the Church 

of England. 15y .1. T. ToMi.iNsoN.f 

112 Reservation of the Host. An Examination of the Reply 

of the C. B S. to tlie Hesulutions of the Upper Houses of Convocation, 
1885. By .J. T. Tomlinson.§ 

113 The Sarum Mass compared with the Communion 

Office of the First Prayer Book of Edward VI, By J. T. Tomlin- 
80N. Price 4d. 

114 Prosecutions for Ritual Observances. A Reply to the 
Dean of Canterl>ury. By the late Rev. Bishop Alford, 1).d.§ 

1 1 .5 Declaration of the Church Association.* 
116 The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper.ft 
in Apostolic Succession.** 

118 Lord Sandon on 

119 What did our Reformers Teach ?tt 

120 What Ritualism is! No. l.ft 

121 What Ritualism is! No. 

122 [Out of print. Will not be reprinted.^ 

123 [Out of lyrint . Will not be reprinted.] 

124 ThePlan of the Campaign.!! 

125 [Out of print. Will not be reprinted.] 

126 Prayers for the Dead. Extract from Homily XIX. Third 

127 Confession. The Bishop of Peterborough on.ff 

128 Confession. Utterances of the Episcopal Bench on.* 

129 Gown V. Surplice.* 

130 Form of Prayer, for those interested in the Society's work.f f 

131 [Out of print. Will not be reprinted.] 

132 Lord Harrowby (the late) on Auricular Confession.* 

133 Collect to be used in the Present Crisis.ft 

134 Vestments— Condemnation of.ft 

135 [Out of print. Will not be reprinted.] 

136 The Eastward Position. No. 2. By the Rev. Canon 

Ryle, (Now Bp. of Liverpool.) 

137 Vestments— Twelve Reasons against. By Rev. Canon 

Ryle, (Now Bp. of Liverpool.) 

138 Church Hymnals. — The care in special need of Selection. ft 

139 A High Church Clergyman on the 

140 The Priesthood of Christ. By the Rev. Canon Ryle, D.D.ff 

(Now Bp. of Liverpool.) 

141 P. P. P. Popery's Poetical Pioneer.ft 

142 Bishop Wilberforce on Confession.** 

143 Justice not Persecution. ft 

144 The Dean of Chichester on Ritualism.ft 

145 Lament of England's Church. By the late Very Rev. Dean 

H. L.\w.* 

146 The Church Rights of Parishioners. By the late Rt. Hon. 

Lord CoCKBTKN, C.J. ft 

147 What do the Times require ? By the Rev. Canon Rylk, 

D.U.* (Now Bp. of Liverpool.) 



US The Ornaments Eubric* 

149 The Illegality of Crosses. Judgment in MAEbiERS r. Durst.* 

150 Proposal by the Chairman of the English Church 

Union to bring back the Liturgy of 1549. Speech by the late 
Rev. Canon HoARE.ff 

151 Holy Scripture versus the Eastward Position. ft 

152 Dean Oakley's Correspondence with Prebendary 


153 Crucifixes abolished under Queen Elizabeth. tt 

154 King Edward VI. and his Altar Lights.ft 

155 Luther's Eitualism-tt 

156 Cross Bearers. By the late Miss HoLT.ft 

157 The Candour of Lord Halifax.ft 

158 The Eastward Position.* 

159 The Work of the Church Association. By the Rev. Canon 


160 The Three Eeligions. Which is yours? By theRev. J. B. 

Waddington.j j- 

161 Questions for the Laity. By the Rev. .j. b. WAPDiNGTON.ff 

162 The Teaching of Ritualism ; and the Teaching of 

the Church of England. By the Rev. J. B WADDiNGxoN.ff 

163 The Great Controversy : Which is the Channel of 

Salvation ? Faith ? or The Sacraments ? By the Rev. J. B. 



164 The Placing of the Lord's Table. By J. T. Tomlinson- 


165 Additional Evidence respecting the Ornaments Rubric 

of 1662. By J. T. Tomlinsux. Rakt lILf 

166 An Appeal to the Laity to Oppose Ritualism. By the 

Rev. W. C. Magee, late Archbishop of York.ff 

167 What did the Reformation do for me ? By the late Rev. 

John B. Mylius, m.a., Rector of Elmdon, Warwicks.jf 

168 The Church and the Bible. By the late Rev. John B. 

Mylids, M.A., Rector of Elmdon, Warwicks.f f 

169 The Lord's Supper, or the Mass? (Illustrated.) By the 

Rev. \V. Lancelot Holland, m.a.* 

170 Church Teaching on the Lord's Supper. By the Rev. 

Charles H. H. Wright, d.d., ph.d.I 

171 The New (?) Purgatory.* 

172 The Bishops and the Ritualists. By W. Clayton 

Clayton, m.a.j 

173 The Position of Ecclesiastical Affairs. By the late Rt. 

Honble. Lord EuuKY.ff 

174 The Inquiring Parishioner. By Rev. B. W. Stannus.* 

175 Evening Communions. By the late Rev. C. H. Marriott. f 
1"6 The Wonderful Iron Roomtt 

177 The Coronation of Queen Victoria.! 

178 [Out oj print. Will not be reprinted.] 

179 Bishop Ellicott on the Church Association, ft 

180 " The Liturgy and the Eastward Position." Illustrated 

by fifteen of the oldest known repiesentatious of the Lord's Supper. 
By J. T. Tomlinson.^ 

181 Sisterhoods in the Church of England t 


182 Canon Law. Reply of the Council of the Church 

Association to tlic •' liejoindcr " of tlie K.('.U.|| 

183 [Out of print. Will not be reprinted.] 

184 [Out of print. Will not he reprinted.] 

185 Comments on the Lincoln Judgment. t 

186 Opinions of the Press on the Lincoln Judgment.! 

187 Ritualism Rampant in the Diocese of St. Albans. 

188 Church Reform. By J. T. Tomlinson.* 

189 Revival of Catholic Discipline.* 

190 Temple Ritual and Christian Worship.f 

191 Church Reform. By the Bishop ok LivEurooL.g 

192 The Chancels shall remain, &c. By J. T. Tomlinson.§ 
19''^ Regeneration and Baptism. By lit. Kev. the Loud 

Bishop of Liverpool. f 
134 Ritualism Rampant in East London. 

195 '• In the matter of moving the Lord's Table.' Case und 

Opinion of (.Kiniisel. I'rice 6ii. 

196 "Religious Education and the Kilburn Sisterhood.'l 

197 [Out of print. Will not he reprinted.] 

19S Bishop Geste and Dean Earrar on the 28th Article. tt 
199 What is "Sacerdotalism "Pit 

VOL. V. 

200 [Will not be reprinted as a numbered Tract.] 

201 [FFiZt not be reprinted as a nuiiihered Tract. 

202 A Review of " The Catholic Religion. A Manual of lustruc- 

lion f(n- Churchmen. By the Itev. Veunon SxALiiY."* 

203 "New Light " on the "Eastward Position."t 

204 Martyrdom for Religion under Queen Mary and 

Queen Elizabeth.* 

205 Spiritual Equipment for Spiritual Work. By the Kev. 

T. Smith. M.A.f 

206 Does Ritualism lead to Rome?* 

207 Parsonolatry ; or, Why rise when Clergy and Choir 

enter the Church ?* 

208 The Vain Vauntings of Dr. Vaughan.* 

209 [Out of print. Will not he reprinted.] 

210 The E. C. U. : Its Popish Character, & 

211 Purgatory Pickpurse.* 

212 Viscount Halifax on the Papacy .ft 

213 Incense. § 

214 Prayers for the Dead. By the Kev. Dr. Wright.^ 

215 A Vital National Question.* 

216 The Pope's Letter. A Declaration of the Church Ass-ociation.* 

217 [See Tract 268.] 

218 The Invention of the Cross, old Facts with new 

Faces. {Illustrated.y\ 

219 Fashionable Torture Instruments of the Ritualists; 

or, the Gospel of Expiation. (^]Uustrated.)'f 

220 Why we are called Protestants. {Illustrated.y 

221 Prayers for the Dead. (Illu.-trated.)-fj 

222 Questions and Answers for English Church People.ft 


•J-2i Modern Bitualism, Ancient Judaism.* 

224 Candles, Crosses, Altars, Pictures: What do the Homilies 

say ?tt 

225 The Holy Communion the Highest Act of Christian 

Worship. By the Kev. B. W. Stanncs, M.A.ff 

226 The Bishop of London's Fund.* 

227 Plain Words about the Lord's 

228 Church Reform. The Outlook for the Established Church of 

England. t 

229 The Eucharist a Lay 

230 Prayers for the 

2.31 The Cowley Fathers, alias The Society of St. John the 

Evangelist, Cowley.* 

232 The use of the term " Priast" in the Prayer Book.* 
■r.vs Old St. Paul's Cathedral and the Bible. {IUusU-ated.)-\\ 

234 The Bible and the Church. By the Ven. Archdeacon 

Taylor, D.D.f 

235 The Archbishops' Reply to the Pope's BvQl. What 

is to be done ?* 

236 Some Criticisms by the Council of the Church 

Association on the '' Answer " to Pope Leo made by Archbishops 
Maclagan and Teni]ile.f 

237 A Word in season about 

238 Convocation on Confession. ft 

239 The Greek Church. Her Doctrines and Principles 

contrasted with those of the Church of England. Is Union desirable 
or possible ? A Lecture by the Kev. Joseph Baedsley, d.d.^ 

240 Union with Oriental Churches. By the Rev. H. E. Fox, 


241 The Modern Confessional. {lllustratecl.)-\j 

242 Modern "Mass" in the Church of England, (lllus- 


243 The Reunion Question as it regards Protestant 

Churches. By the iate Rev. Talbot Greaves.* 

244 Society of the Holy Cress, vvith List of Members.|| 

245 Revelations of Anglican Monkery. § 

246 Society of St. John the Evangelist. The Cowley 

Fathers, t 

247 Sacrilegious Ordinations by Members of the E.C.U.ft 
24S " C. S. J." Companions of Si. 

240 Secret Societies m the Cluircli of England.* 

250 Manifesto and Appeal of the Church Association to 

the People of England.* 


251 Mass or Communion? Samples of Law-breaking under the 

oversight of Dr. Cruitihtou, Bishop of London.^ 

252 The Right Hon. Sir W. V. Harcourt, Bart., M.P., on 

The Action of ttie Bishops. t 

253 The Confessional in the Church of Er gland. 

(Illustrated). fl 

254 Latimer's Candle. (fiZwsh-aferf.)tt 

255 Schools of Thought. Verses by Mautin F, TupPER.ft 

256 Latimer's Light. Verses by liOOEK rKiMKOSE.ft 



257 The Primary Charge of the Archbishop of Canter- 

bury and the Recent Pastoral of the Archbishop of 
York on "Disputes in the Church" 

258 The " Six Points " of the Ritualists ; What do they 

mean ? t 

259 Illegal Ritual in the Church of England. Being a list 

of unlawful practices, with extracts from the Judgments relutng 
to them : and an Index, (id. each. 

260 Beply by the Council of the C. A. to the Manifesto 

of the E. CU-t 
2(U The Universities' Mission to Central Africa. By the 
Rev. T. II. Spahshott.* 

2t)2 Ritualism Rampant in the Diocese of St. Albans.* 
2(;b The Ecclesiastical Procedure Bill proposed by the 

two Archbishops in Convocation.! 
2(i4 The Bishops' Scheme for erecting themselves as 


265 The Danger of Manuals for the Young.§ 

266 " The Society of the Charity of God."* 

267 The Minister's Scarf, or the " Sacriflcer's " Stole— 

2G8 Shall India bow to English Idols ? The S.P.G. in foreign 
parts : Is it worthy of Trotestant support ? 2nd edition. (Illus- 
trated.) j 

269 The Irish University Difficulty Explained? (Illus- 


270 The True Story of the Ornaments Rubric. By J. T. 


271 "The Method of S. Sulpice;" a Review of "the 

Clergy and the Catechism.* 

272 Canon MacColl's Romancings about the Book of 

Common Prayer.f 
-'73 What is Protestantism? r>y the Kev. T. H. 
274 The Church Reform League. Extract from a Paper by the 

^'ell. AucHDEACoN Taylor, d.d. 
27.') The Lincoln Case. A Judgment four times revised since its 

delivery. It 

276 Disestablishment.! 

277 Romanism in the Church of England. The absolute 

usclessness of Appealing to the Bishops.* 

278 A Gross Scandal in the Diocese of York with the 

cognizance of the Archbishop. t 

279 What is the Harm of bringing back the " Reservation 

of the Host"?! 

280 "The Church Discipline Bill, 1900."* 

281 The Convocation Prayer against Popery in the 

Church of England.* 

282 What the Ritualists say about the Protestant Par- 

liamentary Campaign. § 
28.? The Worship of the Host, as promulgated by Viscount 
Halifax, aufi the Keiily of tlie Church Association. || 

284 " Under the Form of Bread and Wine."t 

286 Archdeacon Taylor on the Romanizing Movement.* 

286 Convocations Bill and " Church Reform." * 



287 Why was the First Prayer Book of Edward VI. 

rejected ? t 

288 Sir Eichard Jebb's Convocations Bill.* 

289 The Church Association's many-sided work.** 

290 The Statutory Declaration and the Coronation 

291 Fasting Communion. 

292 " Cardinal " Vaughan and the Royal Declaration 

against Popery.t 

293 Rome's Clerical Recruits from the ranks of the 

English Church Union.* 

294 The Bishop of Manchester's Twentieth Century 

Million Shilling Fund.* 

295 The Protestant Succession to the Throne. An 

Attack upon the Last Legal Security. tt 

296 The Value of Roman Catholic Pledges. tt 

297 Plain Words on the Protestant Declaration made 

by the King of England. By the Rev. J. P. Watts.* 

298 "Superstitious" and " Idolatrous."tt 

299 A Gross Scandal in the Diocese of St. Albans. 

300 The King's Protestant Declaration. By J. Horace 



301 What a Ritualistic Pervert has to say of himself and 
the Ritualistic Party.ft 

302 Roman Catholic Disabilities. By B. Whitehead, b.a. 2d 

303 Shall we change the King's Declaration ?tt 

304 " Procter on the Prayer Book " as " Rewritten" by 
Mr. Frere. A Review by J. T. '1'omlinson. 2d each. 

805 The King's Declaration. Why should we alter it ? 
Rev. Canon Meyrick, m.a.J 

306 Lord Salisbury's Nomination to the Bishopric of 
Worcester. t 

307 The Appointment of Canon G-ore to the Bishopric of 
Worcester. tt 



4, 20, 26, 29, 42, 43, 53, 55, 67, 72, 73, 83. 85, 119, 120, 121, 124, 
139, 144. 145, 152, 162, 166, 172, 176, 206, 207, 222, 254, 256. 

Reply to Pope, 216. 235, 236, 247. 

71, 101. 

Condemn Ritualism, 15, 24, 67, 143, 238, 281. 

Duties of, 62, 172, 208, 252, 254, 255, 264, 277. 

Defence, 106, 113, 114, 159, 179, 260. 

Organisation, 48, 54, 63, 79, 80, 106, 159, 289. 


173, 188, 191, 228, 263, 264, 274, 260, 286, 288 



Moving. 195. 

North Side, 88, 164, 177. 

Placing, 164, 195. 

Evening, 5, 175. 

Fasting, 222, 237, 291. 

Hearing Mass, 87, 99, 199, 242, 251. 

Reservation, 112, 257, 279. 

84, 177, 290, 292, 295, 296, 297, 298, .300, 302, .303, 305. 


17, 19, 50, 130, 133, 160, 161, 163, 205, 237 



A Catechism, 59. 

Confession, 1, 27, 28, 57, 63, 1 27, 128. 132, 142. 222, 238, 241 , 253, 271. 

Dogmatic Teaching, C, 7, 64, 68, 70, 76, 115. 

Justification by Faith. 174, 219, 

Priesthood, 2,8,117, 118, 140. 207, 229, 232,267 

Porgatory, 171,211. 

Regeneration and Baptism, 193. 

Sarcm Mass, 113. 

Temple Ritdal, 190, 223. 

The Danger of Manuals for the Young, 265, 271 . 

The " Gainsaying of Korah," 22. 

The Lord's Supper, 95, 169, 170, 198, 225, 227, 242. 

The " Real " Presence, 25, 94. 102, 116, 169, 170, 198, 227, 242, 
257, 283, 284. 

196, 202, 265, 260, 271, .304. 


Falsification of, 12, 155, 204, 272, .304. 

31, 57, 126, 224. 

2 , 13S, 141. 

251, 252, 257, 2(34, 277, 278, 301, .306, 307. 

74, 77, 146. 

Abstracts of Legal Decisions, 34 (Vestments), 259. 

Boyd v. Philpotts, 40 (Reredos). 

Canon Law, 111, 182. 

Comments on Legal Decisions. 51, 60, 61 (Ridsdale Judgment), 69. 

Jurisdiction of English Metropolitans, 104, 157. 

Marsters v. Durst, Judgment, 149 (Altar Cross). 

PuRCHAS Judgmknt, 35 (Eastward Position), 36 (Wafers). 

P. W. K. Act. 32 ; Comments on, 41,280. 

Rkredos, St. Pails, 105. 

Revival of Catholic Di.scipline, 189. 

Ridsdale v. Clifton, 110. 

Sheppakd v. Bi-nnett, 106,108. 

The Advertisements of Q. Elizabeth, 90 

The Ecclesiastical Procedure Bill, 268. 

The Lincoln Judgment, 185, 275. Opinions of the Press, 186. 

The Misprinted Catechism, 98. 


The Veto, 96, 105, 280. 

Roman Catholic Disabilities, 302. 

52, 261, 268. 

Of 1549, 78, 82, 113, 150, 287. 

Ornaments Rubric, 89, 93, 109, 148, 165, 192, 270. 

Protestantism of, 16, 232, 272. 

3, 126, 214, 221, 222, 2.30. 

66, 129. 

16, 49, 56, 84, 86, 147, 166, 167, 168, 172, 173, 176, 215, 220, 233, 
234, 254, 256, 273, 281. 



Altar Lights, 91, 154, 224, 258. 

Attacks on Privy Council, 100, 107. 

Crosses, 149, 156, 218, 224, 278. 

Eastward Position, 30, 37, 39, 46, 51, 136, 151, 158, 177, 180 
203, 242, 258. 

Idols, 97, 153. 224. 

Ikcense, 23, 213, 258. 

MixKD Chalice, 92, 258. 

Parsonolatrt, 207, 222. 

Vestments, 33, 34, 38, 45, 1 10, 134, 137, 258, 267. 

Wafer Bread, 258. 

Guilds and Secret Societies, 18, 75, 181, 210, 231, 244, 245, 
246, 248, 219, 252, 253, 260, 266, 26S, 274, 283, 284, -.'93. 

Ritualism Rampant, 187, 194, 226, 261, 262, 278, 294, 299, 301, 
306, 307. 

199, 207, 2.i2, 242. 
UNION With Rome, 212, 243, 2C.0. 

With Greek Church, 239, 240. 


I. A Talk with the Vicar. By the late Emilt S. IIolt.|| 

11. The Crucifix at St. Paul's iilhistrated).\\ 

III. Why are we Protestants? By the late Emily s. Holt.§§ 

IV. Q,ueen Elizabeth's Crucifix. By J. T. Tomlinron.H 

V . The New Graven Images at St. Paul's Cathedral. By 
the late Emily S. Holt.II 


We are often asked for Protestant Pictures, suitable for framing for 
house decoration ; toe have therefore arranped to suppiy the following. 
They are all beautiful pictures of the highest order. 
Departure of the Pilgrim Fathers from Delft Haven 

31| X 23i. 

John Knox administering the first Protestant Sacra- 
ment in Scotland, asf x 21. 

Reading the Bible in the Crypt of old St. Paul's. 27J x i^g. 

Escape of a Huguenot Family after St. Bartholomew. 
33 X in. 

Departure of the Mayflower. 34| x I8f. 

Cromwell and Milton. 25^ x 20},, 

Cromwell's Protest against the Persecution of the 
Waldenses. 33 x 21. 

^bi)/ of the above evgravivqf, post free, 15.5. 
Caxton showing the first specimen of his printing to 

Edward IV". 36i X 22. Post free. 30.». 

Latimer preaching at St. Paul's Cross, ^.'sg x 23J. i*o<t 

free, 30^.-. 
The Trial of the Bishop of Lincoln. 43 x 30. 3i.* 6(/. 


Reformation Series No. I. 

1 Archbishop Cranmer going to the Tower, September, 


2 John Wyclifife sending forth his "poor priests" to 

preach the Gospel. 

3 The "Walker Monument and the Walls of London- 


4 Martyr's Memorial, Oxford. 

5 The Place of Latimer and Ridley's Martyrdom at 


6 The Revolution in 1688— William III. entering 


7 Caxton showing his First Proofs to Edward IV. 

8 Cromwell refusing to sign Treaty with France until 

justice is done to the Protestants of Piedmont. 

9 Preaching at St. Paul's Cross. 

10 Princess Elizabeth examined by Popish Bishops. 

11 Luther burning the Pope's Bull. 

12 The Lewes Protestant Martyrs. 

The whole of the above series of twelve, 9d post free. 
Six of the above canls framed green and gold, under green mount, price 

4s each. 


1 Protestantism before Politics.ft 

2 Questions for Protestant Electors! (Abridged. )tt 

3 Manifesto to the Electors of the United Kingdom. 

(Abridged form.) ft 


4 Why Protestantism should be put before Politics. 

(Electoral Roll's Cartoon)tt 

5 Protestant Electoral Roll Pledge Form for Signa- 

6 The Effect of Ritualism in a Working Man's House- 

hold. (Illustrated.)\j 

7 Address to the Working Men of England. tt 

8 Constitution and Statutes for Protestant Electoral 


9 Qualification of Householder, Lodger and Occupier 

Voters, tt 

10 Manifesto to the Electors of the United Kingdom.* 

11 Questions for Protestant Electors.* 

12 Address to Protestant Electors.* 

13 Protestant Electoral Roll Pledge Form for Signa- 

ture, tt 


«. d. 

The Chlirch Intelligencer, the Organ of the Church 
Assoeiaiion, published monthly, price Id; Annual Sub- 
scription ... ... free by post 1 6 

The Church of England Almanack. Interleaved 

for Notes, Price Id. Bound in cloth, gilt edges. Postage extra 6 

Protestant Churchmen are asked to co-operate in the 
circulation of this Almanack. 

Historical Grounds of the Lambeth Judgment. 

By J. T ToMLiNsoN. Sixth Edition ... 6 

Annual Report of the Church Association i o 

The Protestantism of the Prayer Book. By the Rev. 
Dyson Hague, m.a.. Rector of St. Paul's Church, Halifax, 

N. S. Cloth 2.S lOd post free, reduced to 1 10 

For Popular Reading the best book of its kind. 
The Secret Work of the Ritualists. A Startling 

Exposure post free H 

The Church Association Loyal Address to the 

Queen. Coloured ... .. post free 8| 

The Prayer Book, Articles and Homilies : Some 

Forgotten Facts in their History which may decide their 
Interpretation. By J. T. Tomlinson ... post free 5 

Collected Tracts on Ritual. Edited or written by 

J. T. TosiLiNSON ... ... ... ... post free 2 4 

The Great Parliamentary Debate in 1548 on the 

Lord's Supper. J. T. Tomlinson ... ... 6 

Worship and Ritual. BytheRev.E. A. Litton, cloth cover 1 

Ditto, Ditto, paper cover 6 

The Lord's Supper. By the Rev. Canon R. P. Blakeney, 

D.D., LL.D. cloth cover 1 

Ditto, Ditto, paper cover 6 

Doctrine of the Real Presence. By Rev. C. F. Chase i 

Church Reform i 

Lay Comments on Church Topics of 1870-1 1 

i. d. 

Memorial to Royal Comtnissioners on Ecclesias- 
tical Courts 4 

Catholic Doctrine of Eucharistic Sacrifice ... 4 

Five Counter Theories to the Ridsdale Judgment 4 

Hymns, suitable for Church Association Meetings: 
No. 2 per 100 1 

(1) Come, gracious Spirit, heavenly Dove. 

(2) Thou art the way, — to Thee alcne. 

(3) Stand up, stand up, for Jesus. 

No. 3 per 100 1 

(1) Soldiers of Christ ! arise. 

(2) What hath God wrought ! might Israel say. 

(3) The Church of our Fathers ! so dear to our souls. 

(4) National Anthem. 

No. 4 per 100 1 

(1) All hail the power of Jesus' name. 

(2) All other pleas we cast aside. 

(3) Fight the good fight with all thy might. 

(4) God is our refuge tried and proved. 

No. 5 per 100 1 

(1) Jesus, Thy blood and righteousness. 

(2) Not all the blood of beasts. 

(3) God, our help in ages past. 

(4) The atoning work is done. 

No. 6 per 100 1 

(1) God, most high and holy. 

(2) Oft in danger, oft in woe. 

(3) Lord of all power and might. 

No. 7 per 100 1 

(1) Soldiers of Christ ! arise. 

(2) Stand up, stand up, for Jesus. 

(3) National Anthem. 

Protestant Songs per lOO 

Brotherhoods. By the Bishop of Liverpool 

Brotherhoods. By the late Rev. Canon Money, m.a. 
Irish University Question. By the Rev. Dr. Wright. 
Reasons against Images in Churches. By W. H. 

Tucker, Esq. ... 
Hymns Ancient and Modern Tested by Holy 

Scripture, etc. By W. H. Tdcker, Esq. 3d, or per 100 

Important Ecclesiastical Judgments (6) 

Prayers for the Dead. By Canon Girdlestone, d.d. ... 
The Due Limits of Ritual. By the Rev. Canon 

Bardsley, d.d. ... ... ... ... 

National Protestant League Ballads.— Nos. 1, 2, 

and 3 per 100 

Lewis's Reformation Settlement 

High Church. By the late Rev. H. H. Smith 

The Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament— 

What is it? 

See also " Secret Work of the Ritualists "... 



















s. d. 

The Bishop of London's Fund. See Tract 226. 
The East London Church Fund. See Tract 194. 
The Bishop of St. Alban's Fund. See Tract 187, 262. 
The Bishop of Manchester's Fund. See Tract 294. 

The English Church Union— 

Eeasons for Eefusing to .Join. By Rev. Henry J. 

Alcock per 100 1 

Twelve Reasons for Opposing the per 100 1 

The Kilburn Sisterhood, The Church Extension 

Association, or ... ... ... per 100 1 6 

See also Tracts 181 and 196. 
The Society for the Propagation of the Gospel. 
See Tract 268. 

The Society of St. John the Evangelist, Cowley. 

The Cowley Fathers. See Tract 231, 246. 

The Universities' Mission to Central Africa. 

See Tract 261. 

Confirmation Memorial Card. (1.3" x 10") post free 3 

Confirmation Cards per doz., post free 3 

A Guide to Ecclesiastical Law, for Church- 
wardens and Parishioners. Compiled by Henry Miller. 
With Plates illustrating the Vestments, &c. Seventh 
edition ... ... ... ... ... ... post free 1 2i 

Sacerdotalism. A Reply to Canon Knox-Little. 

With illustrations of his method of quotation. By .J. T. 


The Priest on his Throne, and the Priests at their 

Altars : Dialogues. By the late Miss EjtiLY S. Holt 

The Secret History of the Oxford Movement. 

By Walter Walsh. Si.rth Edition... S-y 6d, post free 

Cloth Is dd, post free 

An Indictment of the Bishops, shewing how the 

Church is being corrupted and betrayed by some of them. 

Third Edition ... ... ... post free 

A Further Indictment of the Bishops and of the 

Government post free 

" Making Plain for all Time " ; or, What does the 

Church of England say? ... 6(Z, post free 
John's (not Gilpin's) Raid (not Ride). A Story of, and 

for the Times. By a London Vicar, per doz., post free 
The Ritualist Conspiracy. By Lady Wimborne. post free 

The Crisis in the Church, Letters to " The 
Times," by the Rt. Hon. Sir Wm. V. Harcourt, m.p. 

post free 1 2J 

Lay Judges in Church Courts. The Primate's 
Bill subversive of the Eeformation. By .J. T. 
ToMLiNSON post free 1 IJ 

The Duty of Religious Controversy. By the Rev. 

John Callis, m.a post free 1^ 

The Disruption of the Church of England contains 
the names of over 9000 Clergymen who are helping the 
Roraeward Movement in the National Church ... 2s reduced 

to, post free 1 3 














s. </. 

Protestantism before Politics. Report of the Results 
of the Protestant Vote at the General Election, 1900 

post free (1 

Cardinal Vaughan's Lesson for Protestants. By 

Andrkw Simon Lamb post free Ih 


Miss Holt's Works. 40 vols. "i.s 6d each, or per set 

Horace Morrel. By Cecil Hazlewood 

The Young Squire's Besolve. By Waldo Gbay 
Five Years in Ireland, 1895-1900. By Michael 

Abra of Poictiers. By M. E. Ames 

Casque and Cowl. By F. M. Cotton Walker 

Revelations of Modern Convents. By S. J. Abbott... 


From Prison to Paradise 3s 6rf, reduced to 

Invasion of Cromleigh 

For Bibles and General Miscellaneous Frotesfant 
Publications see separate Catalogue. 













Orders for any of the above should he sent to Mr. Henrt Milleb, Church 
Association, 14, Buckingham Street, Strand; John F. Shaw & Co., 
48, Paternoster Kow, E.C. ; John Kensit, 18, Paternoster Row, E.C, ; 
or C. J. Thtnne, 6, Great Queen Street, W.C. 

^00 -7.1.02 


Was instituted in 1865 to Uphold the Doctrines, Principles, and Order 
of the Church of England, and to counteract the efforts now being 
made to pervert her teaching on essential points of the Christian 
faith, or assimilate her Services to those of the Church of Rome, 
and further to encourage concerted action for the advancement and 
progress of Spiritual Religion. 

The Church Association seeks to resist all innovations in 
the order of the Service as prescribed by the joint authority of the 
Church and State — vi^hether in vestments, ornaments, gestures, or 
practices borrowed from the Church of Rome, and symbolical of her 
. rrors — and especially to prevent the idolatrous adoration of the 
. lements in the Lord's Supper, contrary to the order of our Communion 
Service and the terras both of the Liturgy and Articles. 

The Church Association seeks to resist all attempts to 
restore the use of the Confessional, and every exercise of that Priestly 
authority which was put down at the Reformation, and also to oppose 
the introduction of doctrines contrary to the teaching of the Church, as 
set forth in her Liturgy and Articles. 

The Church Association seeks to effect these objects by 
publicity through Lectures, Meetings, and the use of the Press, by 
Appeals to the Courts of Law in order to obtain a clear decision what 
the Law is, and by Appeals to Parliament to pass such measures as 
may be needed to restrain clergymen from violating the order of their 
Church, and obtruding on their parishioners practices and doctrines 
repugnant to the Formularies and Articles of our Reformed Church. 

The Church Association has at considerable cost obtained 
the condemnation by the Ecclesiastical Courts of sixty ceremonies 
and practices symbolical of Popish Doctrines illegally introduced by the 
Ritualists into the Services of our Reformed Church. 

The Church Association has circulated literature " whole- 
some and necessary " for these times, — millions of Pamphlets and Tracts 
against Ritualism — and by these means the country has been awakened 
to the dangers of the Ritualistic " Conspiracy." In this department the 
Association is really a Church of England Protestant Tract Society. 

The Church Association, 

The Church Association has no sympathy with imprison- 
ment of clergymen for Contempt of Court. It is promoting in 
Parliament a Bill which, if passed, will substitute Deprivation for 

The Church Association has also introduced a Bill into 
Parliament to abolish the Bishop's Veto, which at present bars the 
Laity from their right of appealing to the Ecclesiastical Courts in cases 
where the Romish Mass is thrust upon them in their Parish Churches. 

The Church Association has to cope with lawlessness in 
high places, and to defend the interests of Law, Order, and Truth, with 
this view. 

The Church Association has taken proceedings against the 
Bishop of Lincoln for illegal practices in his Cathedral. 

The Church Association has also taken proceedings against 
the Dean and Chapter of St. Paul's Cathedral for having erected a 
Crucifix and a Madonna in the Metropolitan Cathedral. 

The Church Association has to satisfy appeals for advice, 
guidance, and help which surge from distressed and oppressed con- 

The Church Association has to abet and aid Protestant 
Home Mission-work, to assist those involved in controversy, to furnish 
papers on matters that arise affecting Evangelical religion, and to provide 
suitable Lectures. 

The Church Association has to devise how to meet the 
schemes of Sacerdotalism in the widening arena of Politics. 

The Church Association has to guard the interests of the 
Laity in all Church matters, especially in the matter of " Church 

The Church Association has to check by every available 
means the attempted revival of sacerdotal caste privileges, and " benefit 
of clergy." 

The Church Association has to contest the ground inch 
by inch in fighting the battle of the Reformation and defending the 
Constitutional Settlement of Church and State. 

The Church Association appeals for support— Because it is 
necessary to oppose Ritualism, as helping to thrust upon the unwary 
the Popery which was cast out at the Reformation, and which made 
England cringe to a foreign potentate, kept back the Bible from our 
people, deluged our land with superstition and ignorance, and burned 
our Protestant Reformers. 

The Church Association. 

The Church Association should be supported by all 

Protestant Churchmen. Because a powerful organization is needed to 
oppose the thoroughly organized efforts of those who are trying to 
undo the work of the Reformation ; and it is the only organization with 
the special object of opposing the numerous agencies of Ritualism. 

The Church Association should be supported by all 

Protestant Churchmen, because the "English Church Union," the 
" Society of the Holy Cross," the " Confraternity of the Blessed 
Sacrament," the "Association for the Promotion of the Unity of 
Christendom," and numerous Guilds, Brotherhoods, and Sisterhoods 
are actively promoting the avowed object of " un-Protestantizing" 
our Church. 

The Church Association should be supported by all 

Protestant Churchmen because a large number of Clergy and Laity have 
joined the Church of Rome, and a much larger number have adopted 
thoroughly Romish doctrines aud practices while still continuing in the 
Church of England ; therefore all Protestant Clergy and Laity should 
support the only Society exclusively devoted to the work of defending 
the Protestantism of our Church. 

The Church Association should be supported by all 

Protestant Churchmen, because good Churchmanship, as well as good 
citizenship, demands that the law now clearly decided should be obeyed. 

The Church Association should be supported by all 

Protestant Churchmen, because the Ritualists are endeavouring to bring 
English men, women, and even children within the unhealthy and 
unhallowed influences of the Confessional, to which the Association 
is most resolutely opposed. 

The Church Association should be supported by all 

Protestant Churchmen, because though God alone can defend our Church 
and country from all dangers, religious or national — and to Him must be 
all the glory of giving us the victory — He expects His servants as His 
instruments, to be " workers together with Him," to "earnestly contend 
for the faith," and, when His truth and honour are concerned, to be 
careful that we and our Church are "Jirst pure, then peaceable." 

The Church Association furnishes, by means of its monthly 
ort^an, "The Church Intelligencer," exact information as to 
controverted points in the meaning and structure of the Book of 
Common Prayer, the Thirty-nine Articles and the Formularies j calls 
attention to attacks upon the Protestant principles of the Reformed 
Church of England, whether in Parliament, in Convocation, or in the 
Press } analyzes the drift of the movement for increasing sacerdotal 
privileges and assumptions, and especially the tendency to vest irre- 

The Church Association. 

sponsible power in the hands of the Bishops, and is a channel for the^ 
exchange of thought between Churchmen who value these objects. 
"The Church Intelligencer" costs one penny per month, and 
may be ordered of any bookseller. 

The Church Association issues three volumes of Tracts of 
over thirteen hundred pages. These volumes deal with nearly every 
point of the Ritualistic Controversy, and show the practices which have 
been condemned as unlawful in the Church of England. They form 
a complete Library on the Ritualistic controversy, should be in the hands 
of every Protestant Churchman throughout the country. Sent free by 
post, 35 ']\d. The Tracts may also be had separately. 

The Church Association has published an Almanack for the 
pocket, price one penny, which is full of interesting matter. Church- 
warden's Law. The word "Altar" inadmissible. The Law as to 
Daily Service. Statistics as to the Ritualistic conspiracy. Dates of 
principal events in Reformation. Lists of Archbishops, Bishops, Deans, 
Chancellors. Table of Lessons for every day in the year. Sunday Notes 
for Clergy, &c., Sec, &c. 

The Church Association therefore very earnestly appeals for 
increased support in the present critical position of the Church of our 
Fathers, because the position taken up by the Church Association is 
that of Protestantism against Popery — of Evangelicalism against Sacer- 
dotalism — of the simple Gospel of the grace of God against its coun- 
terfeits and corruptions under the fascinating guise of an old heresy 
under a new face. 

The Church Association enrols Working Men Subscribers at 
I i each 5 Associates at 55 ; Lay Members at 1 05 ; Clerical Members at 5*-. 

The work is greatly crippled for want of adequate funds, urgent appeals 
for help from aggrieved Parishioners are unwiUingly rejected on this 
account. Increased support means increased work. The Council would 
say with Bishop Barrington, " If the Reformation was worth establishing 
it is worth maintaining, but it can only be maintained by a constant 
vigilance in support of those principles which effected it in the six- 
teenth century." 

All Special Donations and Subscriptions to carry on the w^ork 
in dicated above should be sent to the Secretary, Mr. Henry Miller, 

[4, Buc kingham Street, Strand, London ; or may be paid to the account 
of the Association at the Bank of Messrs. Barclay, Ransom & Co., 

54, Lombard Street, E.C., and 2, Pall Mall East, London, S.W. 

{pvottetant league 

(n connection witb 

r% ffibjizel^ oF Ik^ ^^agM<3. ^ 

1. To maintain unimpaired " the Protestant Reformed 

Religion, established by law," and to defend it 
against all encroachments of Popery. 

2. To spread sound Protestant Truth in the Church 

of England. 

3. To unite in prayer for the increase of Spiritual 


4. To co-operate with the Church Association in up- 

holding Reformation Principles; to educate the 
Young in EvangeUcal Truth; and to disseminate 
sound and wholesome literature. 

5. To secure the return of Protestant Candidates at 

Parliamentary Elections. 




1. The formation of Lodges in Towns and Villages. 

2. Social gatherings in Drawing Rooms, School Rooms, or Gardens. 

3. Public Meetings, Lectures or Tea Meetings, to give infopmation, 

report progress, and to confer. 

4. Meetings for Prayer. 6. Classes for Instruction. 

5. Distribution of Literature. 7. Obtaining Signatures to Petitions. 




1. Each Member of the League (male or female) shall 
pay One Shilhng per annum. 

2. Each Member of the League shall undertake to 
devote his (or her) best ability to maintain the Protestant 
Religion, and to secure the return of Protestant 
Candidates at Parliamentary Elections. 

3. Each Member shall receive from the Council of the 
Church Association in London the Diploma of the League; 
and a Badge can be purchased. 

4. Any six or more persons in a Town or Village may 
form a Lodge, and call a meeting to enrol Members. 

5. The President and Vice-Presidents of a Lodge shall 
pay Two Shillings and Sixpence per annum. 

6. Not less than one-half of the Subscriptions received 
through a Lodge shall be remitted to London, the re- 
mainder being retained for local expenses. The Diplomas 
for Members of a Lodge will be forwarded from London 
on receipt (from the Lodge Secretary) of the half Sub- 
scriptions and names and addresses. 

7. Each Lodge shall be governed by a Committee 
elected annually by its Members, such Committee being 
responsible to the Council of the Church Association in 

8. Every Lodge shall, if possible, hold two Public 
Meetings or Lectures each year, and a special meeting 
of a Lodge shall be called whenever necessary, to con- 
sider any important matter referred to it by the London 

9. Minutes of Meetings, and a Register of Members 
and Associates shall be kept by every Lodge, and a brief 
Report of work done -and progress made should be for- 
warded each year to the London Council. 

in connection witb 

"Why should I join itP 

1. BECAUSE it seeks to give to the laity their legitimate 

share in the atliniuistration of Parish alfairs. 

2. BECAUSE it seeks to develop the Church rights of 

the People by preventing the abuses of so-called 
"Patronage," and the denial of justice by the 
arbitrary Yeto of the bishops. 

3. BECAUSE it claims that parishioners shall not be 

subjected to unwelcome and illegal changes in 
their accustomed mode of worship, whether 
with or without the connivance of the bishop. 

4. BECAUSE it seeks to prevent the introduction into 

our Churches of the sacrifice of the Mass, and 
the idolatrous worship of consecrated wafers, 
by the " One-Man Power " of a disloyal priest. 

5. BECAUSE it seeks to compel the bishops to admin- 

ister the law of the land as laid down by Her 
Majesty's Judges. 

6. BECAUSE it refuses to admit that clergymen should 

be exempt from the control of the Crown, or 
from obedience to the laws which regulate the 
conduct of every class in the community. 

7. BECAUSE it witnesses that the " Church " in the 

New Testament did not mean the clergy (whether 
in or out of Convocation) but the "Congregation 
of faithful men," mentioned in Art. xix. 

8. BECAUSE it seeks to make the "Toice of the 

Church " (i.e., the voice of the People who form 
the Church) the recognised arbiter in settling 
Church disputes (St. Matt. xviii.-17). 

9. BECAUSE it enforces the responsibility belonging 

to citizenship in a Christian land, of selecting 
representatives in Parliament who shall give 
eifect to this programme, and abolish the 
unchristian divorce between the " secular " and 
" spiritual " departments of human life, both 
of which equally and alike belong to God. 

10. BECAUSE it upholds liberty of conscience as a 

first principle of political Freedom, and upholds 
Civil and Religious Liberty, freedom of the 
press, and freedom of speech for Churchmen and 
Nonconformists alike. 

11. BECAUSE it maintains the right of every man to 

" come boldly to the throne of Grace," through 
the One Mediator (1 Tim. ii. 5), without the 
intervention of Priest or Prelate. 

12. BECAUSE it upholds the liberties of the people, and 

by uniting them in a powerful League affords 
them the opportunity of making their influence 
felt in a manner which, as individuals, they 
would be powerless to do. 

Every lover of his Country, and friend of Civil and 
Religious Liberty, should join the League. 

Diploma sent on receipt of Is subscription. All information from 
The Registrar, Henry Miller, 

14, Buckingham Street, Strand, London. 

N.B. — This is not a neiv Society, but a further development of the work of the 
Church Association for the purpose of enabhng Protestant Working 
Men and Women to take a part in the great work which the Association 
has in hand. 










I HE best forecast of the future in most cases, but 
especially in those \\'herein the weaknesses and 
failings of mankind are concerned, is to be 
obtained from the experience of the past. And 
it was to the past that the Court in Phi/potts 
V. Boyd, emphatically appealed in justification 
of the Exeter Reredos. In speaking of " painted representations 
of portions of sacred history, to be found in many of our churches," 
the Court relied upon the circumstances that these paintings 
" had been proved by long experience to be capable of remaining 
there without giving occasion to any idolatrous or superstitious 
practices." Would an appeal to the experience of the past, in 
the case of Crucifixes, bring out the same result ? — or, rather, 
it should perhaps be asked, would not the result be the very 
opposite ? 

It is precisely here that, to my mind, the great difficulty presents 
itself in the proposal now made to sanction the restoration of so 
well-known an object as the Crucifix to that place in our Churches 
to which for three hundred years it has been a stranger. 

No. CI.] (JO 

vo:,. 111. 


The Crucifix, as set up in our Churches, has a special history 
of its own. 

Before the Reformation, the " Rood " was ordinarily to be 
found in Parish Churches in this country. It presented the carved, 
sculptured, moulded, or painted figure of Jesus Christ on the 
Cross, and was, in fact, " a Crucifix, with images at the base." — 
See Perry's " Lawful Church Ornaments," p. 247. 

This figure was erected on a structure called the Rood Loft, 
which appears to have traversed the Church at the entrance to the 
chancel j in fact, it occupied as nearly as may be the position 
which the iron screen in the present case does. 

There is in existence the most precise and unquestionable 
evidence on this matter, and it is to be found in the records of the 
Lincolnshire parishes, printed in Mr. Peacock's book on Church 
Furniture, and dated a.d. 1565-6. 

So universal does the existence of the " Rood " in some form, 
either sculptured or painted, seem to have been, that in these returns 
of the Churchwardens of upwards of 150 parishes, there is 
mention of the Rood as having been defaced or pulled down in at 
least 140. 

It will also be found that in Bonner's Articles, put forth during 
the reign of Queen Mary, in the year a.d. 1554 (see Card., 
Doc. Ann., vol. i., p. 152), inquiry is made " whether there be a 
Crucifix, a Rood Loft, as in times past hath been accustomed; 
and if not, where the Crucifix or Rood Loft is become, and by 
whose negligence the thing doth want." 

Again, in Cardinal Pole's Articles, a.d. 1557 (Card., Doc. Ann., 
vol. i., p. 206), "whether they have a Rood in their Church of a 
decent stature, with Mary and John." 

After this period, the historical evidence abounds that in the 
reign of Elizabeth these Roods and Rood Lofts were destroyed, 
far and wide, as monuments of idolatry and superstition, but I 
am not at present concerned with that circumstance, save so far 
as it serves to show that they had existed, and were of general if 
not universal occurrence. 


Not only so, but in the year 1560 a discussion appears to have 
arisen as to the propriety of setting the Roods or Crucifixes up 
again in Parish Churches. 

In the Zurich Letters, first series, p. 67, is a letter by Bishop 
Jewel, dated 4th February, 1560, in which he says : 

" This controversy about the Crucifix is now at its height. . . A 
disputation upon this subject will take place to-morrow. . . . For 
matters are come to that pass, that either the Crosses of silver and 
tin, which we have everywhere broken in pieces, must be restored, 
or our Bishoprics relinquished." 

In the same series, at pages 73-74, dated ist April, in the 
same year, is a letter of Bishop Sandys, in which is the following 
passage : 

"We had not long since a controversy respecting images. The 
Queen's Majesty considered it not contrary to the Word of God, 
nay, rather for the advantage of the Church, that the Image 
of Christ crucified, together with Mary and John, should be 
placed, as heretofore, in some conspicuous part of the Church, 
M^here they might more readily be seen by the people. Some of 
us thought far otherwise, and more especially as all images of 
every kind were, at our last Visitation, not only taken down, but 
also burnt, and that too by public authority, and because the 
ignorant and superstitious multitude are in the habit of paying 
adoration to this Idol above all others." ***** "God 
delivered the Church of England from stumbling blocks of this 

From all this it is plain that the Crucifix formed an ordinary 
feature in the Parish Church before the Reformation ; and it 
cannot be doubted that it did so, not as a mere architectural 
ornament, but as an object of reverence and adoration. 

If any proof was required of this proposition, it may be found 
in the fact that the worship of it was enjoined in the Sarum use, 
the Missal most largely accepted and used in England before the 

This was especially the case on Palm Sunday. In the order of 

62 * 


service or that day, given in the Sarum Missal, a very elaborate 
service ended with the adoration of the " Rood " by the celebrant 
and choir, before passing into the chancel. — See Rock's " Church 
of our Fathers," vol. ii., p. 229. Sarum Missal, Burntisland Edit. 
A.D. 1861, p. 262. 

Such is, most briefly, the part played by the "Rood" or 
Crucifix in English Churches in the past. If set up again in them 
now, what part is it likely to play in the future ? 

It is no doubt easy to say. What proof is there of danger 
of idolatry now ? What facts are there to point to a probability 
of " abuse " ? 

But when the Court is dealing with a well-known sacred object j 

— an object enjoined and put up by authority in all the churches 
of England before the Reformation, in a particular part of the 
Church, and for the particular purpose of "adoration " — when the 
Court finds that the same object, both in the Church and out of 
it, is still worshipped by those who adhere to the unreformed 
Romish faith, and when it is told that, now after a lapse of three 
hundred years, it is suddenly proposed to set up again this same 
object in the same part of the Church as an architectural oriiament 
only — it is hard not to distrust the uses to which it may come 
to be put, or escape the apprehension that what begins in 
■'''decoration " may end in " idolatry." 

If this apprehension is a just and reasonable one, then there 
exists that likelikood and danger of " superstitious reverence" which 
the Privy Council, in Philpotts v. Boyd, pronounced to be fatal to 
the lawfulness of all images and figures set up in a Church. 

Before concluding that it is so, let me pass in review the 
arguments urged in favour of the opposite side of the question. 

I will place, first, among them the consideration, forcibly 
pressed on the Court, that the times we live in are not as the 
times before or at the period of the Reformation ; that images 
and figures which gave occasion then "for unhealthy minds " to 
abuse, " we, in our more extended knowledge, may be permitted 
to use with safety." 


"That there is a wide difference in the state of knowledge, and 
still more in the degree of its general diffusion, between the 
19th and 1 6th centuries will not be denied; but is it equally- 
certain that superstition has waned in proportion as the light 
of intellectual culture has advanced, and that the ground gained 
by the one, has been lost by the other ? 

Is it really so absurd, as it was argued to be, to imagine that 
in the present day the worship of lifeless images and figures, 
not as idols, perhaps, but as aids to devotion, should again 
prevail as in old times ? 

The fear that it should be so may be unfounded, but I 
question whether intellectual culture can be relied upon as a 
safeguard against it; for, if so, what is to be said of the Romish 
Church and of those able and distinguished men who, in our own 
day, have not hesitated to join it and accept its doctrines ? 

What I am here discussing, I must again repeat, is not the 
belief in an idol of wood or stone, but the practice of involving 
in devotional exercises outward and visible forms, as inculcated 
in the devotional books of the Roman Catholic creed. 

This is the " fond thing vainly invented " of the twenty-second 
Article of Religion ; and the mere fact of the existence of 
such a doctrine in that Church, among whose members high 
intellectual power and acquirement is rife, is to my mind a con- 
clusive answer to the suggestion that the intellect or knowledge 
of the present day may be relied upon to take the place of 
those safeguards which it was the work of the Reformation to 

But another consideration must not be lost sight of. If the 
intelligent and the cultivated no longer need the protection of old 
days, can the same be said of the weak and ignorant ? The Parish 
Church is for all — not for a class — and if the Crucifix, placed 
as it is in this instance, is lawful for St. Peter's Church, it is 
lawful for every Parish Church in the country, and may be pro- 
vided for every congregation — strong-minded or weak, instructed 
or ignorant. 


Let it be considered to what such a state of things as that 
would be hkely to lead. 

If devotion to our Lord comes to be habitually paid immediately 
before a sculptured figure of His Body on the Cross, which 
arrests the eye and occupies the imagination while the mind is in 
attitude of prayer, it may be easy to some, and possible to many, 
but hardly possible to all, to wholly dissociate the outward object 
from the inward prayer, and exclude it from playing any part in 
that devotion. 

The immediate presence before the eye of an outward form or 
object proffers an assistance, though of a spurious kind, towards 
fixing wavering thoughts, and exalting religious fervour, which ] 

can hardly be rejected by those who most feel the want of it, 
and to whom all abstract thought is a difficult exercise. When 
there cease to be any such, the peril may cease also ; but, 
until then, it is impossible, I think, to accept the alleged robust 
temper of the present times as a safeguard against so obvious a 

Another argument urged for the Respondent was this, that 
crosses had been as much abused and worshipped before the 
Reformation as Crucifixes, and are therefore as much in danger 
of abuse now, and yet Crosses were by the Court, in JFestertoii v. 
Liddell, held not to be unlawful as ornaments. I will only say on 
this head of argument that the Court in that case were of a 
contrary opinion; that for reasons which they considered sufficient, 
they distinguished Crucifixes from Crosses in this respect, and that 
if they had been unable to do so, there is nothing to show that, 
in their judgment, either Crosses or Crucifixes would have been 
lawful ornaments. 

A further objection was then taken that, if the delineation of 
tlie Crucifixion in sculpture may not be lawfully set up in a 
church, the same thing must be equally true of a picture in a 
painted window, exhibiting a similar figure. 

It is not to be doubted that, in many churches (and in the 
notable instance of St. Margaret's Church, at Westminster, where 


the^vindow is of great age), representations of the Crucifixion in 
painted glass or paintings are to be found, and I am not prepared 
to offer any definition which should draw a sharp line of distinc- 
tion between such decorations and a Crucifix. Indeed, I doubt 
whether any narrower or more exact definition of what is lawful 
and what unlawful, can, for practical purposes, be framed, than 
that which is set forth in the case of Phi/ /potts v. Boyd. 

But, adhering to that decision, and each case standing on its 
own circumstances, it is, I think, to be presumed that the Court 
of Appeal would not hesitate to adjudge even painted windows, 
or paintings portraying the same subject, to be unlawiul if it was 
satisfied from the mode in which the subject was treated, the place 
which they occupied, or other the incidents and surrounding 
circumstances that they were in real danger of adoration, worship, 
or superstitious reverence. So long as they are free from this 
charge and fulfil no other function but that of fitly decorating 
the Church, they are free from objection — the moment that, from 
any cause, whether residing in the objects themselves, or arising 
among those who worship in the Church, the danger of their 
adoration is made manifest, I conceive that they cease to be 
innocent, and fall under the charge of illegality. 

Up to this point I have considered only the reasons which lead 
to a conclusion that this Crucifix is likely to invite " superstitious 
reverence." I will now say a few words on the alternative 
proposition, that it is intended only, and is likely to serve only, 
as an architectural decoration. 

Viewing the matter in this light, the remark naturally arises 
that this particular figure of the Crucifix, while it may be justly 
said to stand highest among the representatives of Gospel history 
in its fitness for the purposes of adoration or worship, must 
surely be admitted to occupy a very inferior place among the 
subjects adapted for the display of mere architectural beauty. 

In association with other figures, and as embodying the scene 
of the Crucifixion, it has no doubt been the subject of artistic 
treatment; but by itself, as it appears here in this Church, 


standing alone, without incidents or adjuncts, it is a subject 
which, however artistically treated, might be so well spared in the 
mere decoration of Churches, that it is not easy to conceive that 
it should be selected solely for that purpose. — judgment of Lord 
Penzance, February ^rd, 1876. 

* * * * 

On Appeal this Ruling was affirmed hy the 
Privy Conncil^ who, after quoting from the above, 
added : — 

" In these observations of the learned Judge their Lordships 
concur; and they select them as the grounds of his decision 
which commend themselves to their judgment. They are prepared, 
under the circumstances of this case, to affirm the decision 
directing the removal of the crucifix, while at the same timie they 
desire to say that they think it important to maintain, as to repre- 
sentations of sacred persons and objects in a church, the liberty 
established in Philpotts v. Boyd, subject to the power and duty of 
the Ordinary so to exercise his judicial discretion in granting or 
refusing faculties, as to guard against things likely to be abused 
for purposes of superstition." 

To beobtained at the Office of the Church Association, 14,Buckinghara Street, Strand, London. 
By Subscnbers, for distribution, free. By others at bd per doz. or 3s per 100. 
5th Thousand. 




J. F. SHAW & CO., 48, Paternoster Row, E.G. 

No. CII.] 

Price One Penny each. 

The Misprinted Catechism of the Church of England. 

Pavt I 
Additional Evidence respecting Ornaments Rubric, p^^^ ^ 

Advertisements of Queen Elizabeth. 

Queen Elizabeth's Crucifix: its Secret History and Real 

Altar Lights: their History and Meaning. 

" Hearing Mass;" or, Non-Communicating Attendance. 

Mixed Chalice. 

"Spiritual Presence" as taught by Ritualists. 

Teaching of the Catechism as to the Lord's Supper. 


" North Side of the Table." Pvke Twopence. 

London : J. F. Shaw & Co., 4S, Paternoster Row, E.C. 

'Into their hands/' 

The following official announcement has been made to the con- 
gregation of St. Andrew's, Worthing : — 

" Communicants are jiarticularly requested to observe the following 
points : — 1. To receive the Sacrament of the Lord's Body into their 
hands, viz., the palm of their hands, and not to take it between their 
thumb and finger. 2. To take hold of the foot of the chalice when it is 
administered to them, and so to ensure being communicated. This 
will save the priest much anxiety. [Signed] Gilbert Moor." 

Mr. T. Smelt states that at Hurstbourne Tarrant, near 
Andover, the officiating clergyman 

" Refuses to administer the sacrament unless the recipient will 
receive the bread in the palm of his hand ; he won't allow anybody to 
touch or take it with the fingers, and if they attempt to do so he 
passes them by without farther notice, not even offering them the 

Now, as ' high ' priests teach that no one can ' generally ' 
be saved who does not " eat the flesh and drink the blood " of 
the " Sacramental Jesus," the " Eucharistic God " (as the con- 
secrated elements are variously designated by Romanists and 
their imitators), it would seem that the sin of ' taking ' the 
bread from the clergyman's hand is held by them to endanger 
the spiritual safety of the rejected communicant ! Does not the 
uncharitableness of Rabbinical pedantry consist in " teaching 
for doctrines the commandments of men ?" 


Three reasons for the new mode are assigned by Ritualists. 

1st. That the Prayer Book orders the minister to " deliver 
the communion to the people into their hands," which, 
they say, must mean depositing it in the open palm of 
one' hand. 

2nd. That S, Cyril of Jerusalem (a.d. 361), wrote — 

" When you draw near, do not come with your palms wide 
open, or your fingers apart ; but making your left hand a 
support for your right, as about to receive a king, and making 
your palm hollow, receive the body of Christ." 

And that the same direction was repeated by the Council 
of Constantinople, a.d. 692, and by John of Damascus, 
A.D. 750, both of whom add that the hands must be in 
the form of a cross. 

3rd. That danger of a possible accident is incurred by every 
communicant who ' takes ' the bi"ead instead of allowing 
the priest to deposit it in the ' hollow ' palm. 

Since these ' reasons ' find acceptance in certain quarters, it 
becomes worth while to consider them. 

As regards the English Prayer Book it is clear that the 
' delivery ' of the Cup " into the hands " cannot possibly mean 
depositing it in the hollow palm of one hand, although the 
' delivery ' of the cup is prescribed in identical terms with that 
of the bread in the Rubric which relates to " both kinds." That 
delivery, moreover, is directed to be " in like manner " to the 
reception by the celebrant, who necessarily employs his fingers 
when ' taking ' the bread. The old Mozarabic liturgy directed 
the priest to say " I will take from the table of the Lord," &c} 
And the Church of Rome even now directs the priest to "take 
(accijnt) both parts of the (broken) Host between the thumb 
and forefinger of his left hand " at the time of his own recep- 
tion. That was prescribed also in the Use of Sarum.^ So that 
it is only laymen's fingers which appear to be objectionable. 

1 " De mensa Domini accipiam," Smith's Diet. Christian Antiquities, p. 415. 

2 Maskell's Ancient Liturgy, p. 121-3. Hammond, p. 350. 


The English Rubrics twice direct the minister to " take the cup 
into liis hands." He is also to " take the paten into his hands," 
just as at baptism he is to " take the child into his hands." 
These are the only instances in which the same words occur, 
and in not one of them can the phrase be understood as im- 
])lying the open palm of one hand made 'hollow' for the occasion. 
The word ' Take,' it will be remembered, was part of the Divine 
formula of Institution, and it is beyond question that as so 
employed it implied some use of the fingers. For where it is 
said that our Lord ' took ' the loaf, and ' took ' the cup, as also 
when He said, " Take this, and divide it among yourselves " 
(Luke xxii.-17, Xu/je-e), the very same word is employed which 
the Anglican minister now addresses to his fellow communicants. 

In the Syriac liturgy of Ignatius the Patriarch, our Lord's 
words stand paraphrased. " Take and drink each from one 
another's hand."^ In the liturgy of S. Chrysostom, as Canon 
Swainson points out, " if other priests were present they seem 
to have passed the paten and chalice to eacli other. Then the 
deacons receive in like manner."* 

The Rubrical word there was 'share' or 'partake,'^ corre- 
sponding to the ' part-taking ' of the sacrificial meal mentioned 
by St. Paul 1 Cor. x.-17, 21, at which it need hardly be said 
tihat (before the invention of knives and forks) some use of the 
fingers was always involved. 

Indeed, the liturgical utterance of the word ' Take ' was not 
only the warrant but the signal for the delivery to the individual 
of his ' share ' in the covenant feast. 

Mr, Scudamore remarks : — 

" After the words ' Take, eat,' the liturgy of St. Mark bids 
the deacon say, as a direction to the people, ' Stretch forth.' 
Similarly, after the clause 'Drink ye all of it,* he says, 'Still 
stretch forth,' I understand, 'your hands.' 'E^Tf/rf*' x^'P" ^^ 

8 Scudanaore, Notitia Eucharistica, p. G30. 
* Swainson's Greek Liturgies, p. 147. 
' fiiTaXafilSdvovai, Swainsou, p. 140. 


the common phrase, when anything is, as here, to be touched or 
taken "hold oi. See the LXX, Gen. viii.-9 ; xix.-lO; xlviii.-14; 
Exod. iv.-4, &c. St. Matt. viii.-4 ; xiv.-31 ; xxvi-51 ; St. Mark 
i.-4l ; St. Luke v.-13, &c., &c."« 

About a thousand years later, when " hearing mass " had 
taken the place of the primitive participation of the Lord's Supper, 
Maldonatus, the Jesuit, mentions that " the non- communicating 
laity when the Eucharist is exhibited stretch forth their hands 
as if in the gesture of taking it, and then move their hands to 
their mouths," which (as the writer who sometimes passes under 
the name of " Bp. Cosin " observes) is a pathetic protest against 
the unjust Stewards who have taken away the children's bread.^ 

On reverting to the Gospel narrative of the original institu- 
tion it will be seen that all modern distinctions between 
reception by the celebrant and that of the rest of the Church 
can only be defended as being matters of order which have in fact 
varied, and may lawfully be modified from time to time, " accord- 
ing to the diversities of countries, times, and men's manners."* 
Since, as Chrysostom says, " under the Old Testament, when the 
priest ate some things, and those under him others, it was not 
lawful for the people to partake of those things whereof the 
priest partook. But not so now, but before all one body is set 
and one cup."^ 

All who were bidden to " Take, eat," were also authorised to 
* Do ' what our Lord then did. The force of this consideration 
is shown by the precaution of the Louvain Doctors, who in 1662 

•^ Not. Euch. p. 614. So Dionysius of Alexandria (a.d, 200) speaks of a 
layman " standing at the holy table, and stretching forth his hands to 
receive the holy food," \ilpaQ Trportivavra. (Euseb. Eccl. Hist. lib. vii. c. 9.) 
And in his Canonical Epistle to Basilides, he speaks of believing women as 
" approaching the holy table and touching the ' body ' and 'blood ' of the 
Lord"; on which Balsamon remarks, "anciently women went into the 
sanctuary and communicated from the holy table " (diro rije uyiaq TpdirtZrjQ 
fiiTaXcifiliavov). Bohn's edition of Eusebius states, quite incorrectly, that 
Chrysostcm prescribed the ' hollow ' palm. 

' CoRin's Works. V.-112. » Art. xxxiv. '^ Hom. xviii. on 2 Cor. 


altered Matt. xxvi.-27 into "Drink ye all twelve of it," and St. 
Mark xiv.-23 into " and all the twelve drank of it." ^° 

Whereas the * We ' who ' broke ' the bread and ' blessed ' the 
cup in 1 Cor. x.-16 are described by St. Paul as being the whole 
Church, as the very next verse, and indeed the whole context 
demonstrates. The word ' We ' in that verse, so far from being 
emphatic, is not even expressed in the original. If, then, the 
whole celebration thus belonged to the Church, as such, a fortiori 
the mere distribution of the elements after consecration belonged 
to the minister only as being " the brother Avho presided "" and 
who customarily distributed the broken fragments by the hands 
of the deacons to the rest of the ' brethren.' 

But all this was merely regulated by custom. Tertullian (a.d. 
200) says " the Sacrament of the Eucharist, commanded by our 
Lord both at a meal time, and to ALL, we are in the habit 
of taking eveyi in meetings before daylight, nor from the 
hands of others than the Presidents. "^^ He gives this as an 
illustration of current traditions " which no scripture has pre- 

About the same date, Clement of Alexandria wrote: " Some in 
the dispensing of the Eucharist according to custom (wg £0oc) 
enjoin that each one of the people should take (Aa/3£t»') his 
portion ; conscience being the best guide for choosing or 
refusing rightly."^' 

In the next century Basil wrote : " It is superfluous to show 
that it is no great offence for a man to be compelled, in the 
times of persecution, to take (\afij3apuv) the communion with 
his own hand, in the absence of priest or deacon, for long 
custom has established this by this very practice. For all the 

w Littledale's Plain Reasons, Chap. 58. 

n The title Upoirrrug used by Justin Martyr, belonged then to a civil 
oflScer who might ' preside ' at a wedding, a village club, or on the bench with 
his fellow judges. Tertullian says " certain seniors preside, obtaining that 
honour not by purchase but by established character." Apol. xxxix. Com- 
pare Didache, xiv.-l. 

1^ De Coyona, Cap. 3. i» Stromata, p. 318, Ed. Potter. 


monks in the deserts, where there is no priest, retaining the 
communion at home, receive {^uToXap-ftdvovrnv) from themselves. 
Again in Alexandria and in Egypt, each, even of those who live 
amongst the people (as is done for the 'most j^art) has the 
communion at home."" 

So common was this that Jerome (who mentions incidentally 
that the bread was conveyed in a wicker basket, and the ' blood * 
in a glass vessel) complains of some who even preferred to 
receive at home instead of coming to church. Various councils, 
as that of Saragossa, a.d. 380, and Toledo, a.d. 400, denounced 
those who after taking their ' portions ' in church did not, after 
all, partake of the elements so reserved.^^ So late as a.d. 1180 
Balsamon, writing of the reserved sacrament, says " the Latins, 
even though they be laymen, give these sacraments not only to 
themselves, but to others also." ^^ And in 1886 Mr. Scudamore 
testifies that " Greek monks still carry the holy Eucharist with 
them when on a long journey."" In all such cases (which might 
be multiplied indefinitely) it "goes without saying" that 
laymen's fingers must have been used in ' taking ' the morsel. 
Yet such " Catholic Fathers of the Church" as Cyprian, 
Augustine, Basil, Ambrose, Gregory, and Jerome (to name no 
more) recognised and approved the custom without thought of 
our nineteenth century fad about laymen's fingers. Even when 
(in A.D. 692) the Council of Constantinople forbad laymen to 
help themselves in presence of a clei^gyman, they merely 
punished the offenders by a ^teeZ;'* suspension, "that they may 
..hereby be taught not to be wiser than they ought to be." 
This was evidently regarded as a mere clerical bye-law to secure 
order, without so much as a hint or suggestion of 'sacrilege,' 
which would have met with a far severer punishment. 

Bjj. Kingdon has shown, too, that in the earliest times, even 

" Ad C.-Esariam Patiiciam. Ep. 93 or 289. 

i« Not. Euch. 905. i« Bp. Beveridge's Pandects, i.-225. 

17 Not. Euch. 906. Boys and women were sometimes employed to distri- 
bute the fragments to the sick, prisoners, and other absentees. Borva, Eerum 
Liturg., II. xvii.-5, 7. Smith's Diet. Christian Antq., i.-836. 


apait from the Agape, the Eucharist frequently formed the 
prelude to an ordinary meal;^" and Martene mentions tliat certain 
orders of monks used on Maundy Thursday to place a host on 
each man's bread in the refectory when " the blessing having 
been made silently by the Prior, each man who chose might 
take the host and eat it, the Prior taking the lead." 

When we call to mind that the Eucharist was the analogue of 
the paschal supper, and the counterpart of the communion feast in 
other forms of sacrificial worship (1 Cor. x.), and lastly that the 
3oint participation of the consecrated viands constituted it the 
pledge of unity among bretliren sharing the same covenant feast 
in common at the ' table ' of their reconciled Father, we shall 
readily recognise that the ' taking ' by individuals of the bread 
broken for each and of the cup delivered to all alike was a not 
inappropriate gesture at the Supper of the Lord.^^ 

But superstition soon marred the simplicity of the rite. Men 
began (a.d. 692) to bring receptacles of gold or other precious 
materials for the reception of their ' portions,' and though this 
practice was checked, women were, nevertheless, bidden to cover 
their hands with clean linen cloths, and the Council of Auxerre 
so early as a.d. 578, forbade " a woman to receive with bare 
hands," or to "put her hand to the corporal."^" This was followed 
in 847 by Pope Leo IV. forbidding women to touch even the 
cup ; and the Council of Rouen (a.d. 880) " strictly prohibited 

18 Fasting Communion, pp. 201-233. 

13 Compare the Reformatio Legum, De Sacramentis C. 4. " Eucharistia 
sacramentum est, in quo cibum ex pane sumunt, et potum ex vino, qui 
convivae sedent in stfcra Domini mensa." 

20 The free access of the laity to the Holy Table is shown also by the story 
which Gregory of Nazianzum tells of his sister Gorgonia (a.d. 339), who " laid 
her head against the altar " while " her hand treasured somewhat of the 
antitypes of the precious body and blood," which (alas !) she applied as a 
cure with which to "anoint her whole body" [Orat. VIII. § 18]. It is 
shown too by the allusion of Chrysostom who threatened a theatre-goer, " I 
will not receive him within this chancel ; I will not give him to partake of 
the mysteries ; I will not suffer him to touch the Holy Table " [Contra 
Ludos., Tom. VI. 276. D. So again De Davide, Horn, iii., Tom. IV. 709. C.]. 



Presbyters from placing tlie Eucharist in the hands of any lay 
person, commanding them to place it in their mouths." Even 
sub-deacons had thenceforth to forego the use of their own 
hands. This priest-glorifying arrangement prevailed from the 
ninth century downwards and was temporarily retained in 
the provisional order of 1549, which had the following rubric : — 

" Although it be read in ancient writers, that the people, many 
years past, received at the priest's hands the sacrament of the 
body of Christ in their own hands, and no commandment of Christ to 
the contrary : yet, forasmuch as they mauy times conveyed the same 
secretly away, kept it with them, and diversely abused it to super- 
stition and wickedness : lest any such thing hereafter should be 
attempted, and that an uniformity might be used throughout the 
whole realm, it is thought convenient the people commonly receive 
the Sacrament of Christ's body in their mouths, at the priest's 

Of course such a bai'barous method would fail to prevent any 
real sacrilege. The Pseudo-Aquinas mentions that the origin of 
the use of the medisBval (nnconsecrated) wine-cup after receiving 
the consecrated wafer was " that women addicted to witchcraft 
might not so easily be able to reserve the body of Christ in their 
viouth for the perpetration of any crime of theirs, as we have 
often understood that many cursed women have done."^^ 

But so soon as Cranmer and the reforming bishops could rid 
themselves of their Romish colleagues (Bonner, Gardiner, 
Heath, Day, Voysey, and the rest) they at once directed the cup 
to be ' delivered ' to the people, instead of mei'ely " giving the 
Sacrament of the blood " for " every one to drink ; " and the 
bread also to be given " to the people in their hands," while 
at the same time the words of distribution were changed into — 

" Take and eat this, in remembrance that Christ died for thee, and 
feed on Him in thy heart by faith with thanksgiving." 

It is important to remember that the word ' Take' was for the 

21 Not. Euch. 725 n. John Beleth inA.D. 1192 explains that this was done 
" lest by chance any of the Sacrament should have been left in their mouth, 
which might easily be spat out." Ibid. p. 715. 

" INTO THEIR hands:' 11 

first time inti'oduced as an address to the commiinicants in the 
"Second Praj-er Book of Edward," 1552. More than a twelve- 
month previously, however, John a Lasco had published in 
London, and under Royal Letters Patent, a liturgy, in which 
each separate communicant was directed to " Take thence (i.e. 
from the paten) a morsel of the bread "; and " one hands to 
another the cup he had received from the minister."*^ 

That practice had also been advocated so early as 1533 by the 
Martyr Tyndale who proposed — " Eveiy man breaking and 
reaching it forth to his next neighbour. "^^ 

Tyndale's description of wafers shows also why they were 
abolished in the Liturgy of 1552. " Little pretty thin mancheta 
that shine through, and seem more like to be made of paper, or 
fine parchment, than of wheat flour. About which was no small 
question at Oxford of late days, whether it were bread or none ; 
some affirming that the flour, with its long lying in water, was 
turned to starch and had lost its nature." Gluten bread is no 
more true ' bread ' than gelatine is beef ; and unbroken wafers 
could not represent either, " the breaking the bread," or the 
oneness of " the loaf." (1 Cor, x.-17.) See Becon's "Works, ii.- 
301, iii.-267, 363. 

The Marian exiles at Geneva, in 1566, had a rubric, " The 
Minister takes the bread, breaks and distributes it. So likewise 
the cup. They, when they have received, divide it in their turn 
among themselves."^* 

John Knox's Scotch liturgy of 1567 had " The Minister 
breaketh the bread, and delivereth it to the people, who distribute 
and divide the same among themselves," &c. 

22 La Forme et Maniere, &c., fol. 144. The direct influence of this liturgy 
upon our own Prayer Book was shown in the Chukch Intelligencer, iv.-13. 
Even in England, as we learn from Becon, the chajilain of Ahp. Cranmer 
(Works, ii. 301), " a layman to touch the sacramental bread or cup with his 
bare hand is counted in the Parish Church a grievous sin ; but if the lay- 
man have a glove on his hand, made of sheep's skin, then he may be bold to 
touch it : as though there were more holiness or worthiness in a sheep's 
skin than in a christian man's hands. hypocrites, swallowing in a camel 
and straining out a gnat ! " 

23 Works, Parker Soc, iii.-267. 2J ^atio et Forma, p. 52. 

63 * 


Under Elizabeth, tlie words of distribution remained the same 
■which had been adopted in 1552, though prefaced as now by the 
prayer, " The body of our Lord preserve," &g. Yet it is clear 
that the word ' take ' was then understood to imply an active use 
of the whole ' hand ' and not the passive tendering the mere 
' palm ' of one hand. 

The papist MylesHuggard,in his "Displaying of Protestants," 
155G, deriding the Edwardian usages, said, " Some would hold 
the cup himself, some would receive it at the minister's hands, 
some of his next fellow." John Rastell in his " Challenge to 
Bp. Jewel," 1565, taunts him, "that the lay people communi- 
cating did take the cup at one another's hands, and not at the 
priest's."^* Mr. Lewis, in his recently published " Life of Bp. 
Hall," (p. 33), quotes a like railing description of the practice at 
Emmanuel College in 1584. They " doe pull the loaf one from 
the other, after the minister hath begon. And soe the cup, one 
drinking as it were to another, like good fellows, without any 
particular application of the saide words, more than once for 

After making due allowance for the exaggerations of professed 
caricaturists, such statements prove at least that at the time 
when the word ' Take ' was originally introduced, it was under- 
stood to admit of the practice which some private parsons now 
presume " of their own extemporal wits " to forbid. As the 
direction to 'deliver' is binding on the clergyman, so the direction 
to ' take ' is addressed to the layman, whom alone it concerns. 
Let each therefore mind his own business. 

" Here it may be noted that the old Latin service gave only the 

25 Heylin, Hist. Kef., ii.-430. 

26 The question of the administration to ' railfuls ' at one time is not now 
under discussion ; but it must be remembered that in 1552 the distributive 
words "to everyone " were struck out from the book of 1549, and that the 
existing words "to any one" (which are general but not necessarily 
distributive) were not inserted till 1661. The Twenty-first Canon of 1604 
restricted the liberty which under the rubrics of Edward and Elizabeth had 
existed in this respect. The abolition of that restriction was recommended 
by the Eitual Commissioners in their Fourth Eeport, p. 20. 


7 '■ 

form in which the priest received, while in 1549 and ever after, 
the form of delivery to the people alone was given, showing how 
once the priest alone was remembered, and now he was merged 
in the people. "^^ " When the Prayer Book was revised at the 
beginning of the reign of Elizabeth (1559) these two sentences 
were combined : so that our present form contains the most 
ancient and simple words of delivery ; adding the prayer formed 
with them in Gregory's time, and continued in the missals ; and 
also the favourite words of the staunchest Reformers, implying 
that each individual is to take, and eat and drink, with an 
application of the merits of Christ's death to his oion soul."^* 

This, and nothing less than this, is involved in the language of 
our Book of Common Prayer. The active going forth of the 
individual soul, the conscious effort to ' meet ' the Father on the 
part of the prodigal, the laying hold of and appropriating an 
individual share of the common gift, this (and not mere 
passive receptivity while undergoing some change supposed to 
be effected upon physical contact with consecrated matter 
placed by a priestly Mediator within the mouth or in the 

* hollow ' palm) is the meaning of the custom so long and 
legitimately received among us. Canon Norris (in his valuable 

* Gatecliists ifamial,' Longmans, p. 57) says : " For this same 
reason — to show that effort on our part is necessary — the 
Catechism inserts the word ' taken ' before the word ' received.' 
As the bread and wine are not received unless the hand be 
reached forth to take them, so what Christ offei-s is not received 
unless the hand of faith be reached forth to take it. This is 
the teaching of the 29th Article." " The word ' taken ' points by 
sacramental analogy specially to the office of faith as the soul's 
hand, and the word ' received ' to the office of faith as the 
soul's mouthy^ " How shall I hold him who is absent? How 
shall I send my hand into heaven, that I may hold him who sits 

27 Hole's Manual of the Book of Common Prayer, p. 152. 

28 Procter's Hist. Common Prayer, p. 351. 

23 Dimock's Papers on the Doctrine of the English Church, p. 732. 


there ? Send forth faith, and thou hast held him," said St. 
Augustine."^" " By the hand of faith we reach unto Him, and 
by the mouth of faith we receive His body," says Bp. Jewel ;^^ 
and Abp. Whitgif t defended our use of the words of distribution 
in the singular number by the consideration that " forasmuch as 
every one that receiveth this Sacrament hath to apply unto 
himself the benefits of Christ's passion, therefore it is convenient 
to be said to everyone : " Take thou, eat thou."^^ 

As to the supposed authority of Cyril of Jerusalem (who appears 
to be the real author of the new fashion, and who is charged with ' 
Semi-Arianism by the Biogz^apher of St. Athanasius), apart from 
the fact that the v?ri tings attributed to him are in whole or in 
part pretty certainly not his at all, as Bp. Andrewes and Dean 
Goode have shown ^ we have to consider how far we are 
prepared to follow that divine, who in the very same passage 
from which the above practice is taken, also recommends the 
communicant to touch his eyes with the bread, and adds, " touch 
with thy hands the moisture remaining on thy lips and sanctify 
both thine eyes and thy forehead and the other organs of sense !" 
English churchmen kneel in prayer, and also at the reception, 
whereas Cyril did neither the one nor the other. What, then, is the 
value of an ' authority ' who is to be followed only when his views 
and those of the reader happen to coincide ? According to the 
principles of Canon law, Eastern councils are in no way binding 
upon Western Christians in matters of discipline : whereas 
English clergymen are bound by the decrees of theio' oivn 
"particular and National church" (Art. sxxiv). As to the 
supposed danger of ' accident,' may it not be reasonably 

so In Joan, xi. Tract L. 4. si Works, p. 1119, eel. Parker Soc. 

S2 Works, iii.-97. " The Mystery of the Lamb," said Justin Martyr 
(Trypho., cap. 40), "which God commanded to be sacrificed as the Passover, 
■was a type of Christ ; with whose blood they who believe in Him sprinkle 
their own houses, that is themselves, according to the proportion of faith in 

ss Nature of Christ's uresence, i.-482. 


contended that the conveying bread to the mouth without the 
aid of the fingers is much more likely to contribute to such a 
result ? No one would dream of preventing an ' accident ' at 
his dinner table by taking all his solid food solely from the 
palm of one hand. The ' palm ' is common to man with the 
brutes, whereas the thumb (forming with the fingers a forceps 
of marvellous flexibility and accuracy) is the unique distinction 
of Man " made in the image of God." Cardinal Bona suggests 
that the practice of withdrawing the Sacrament from the hands 
of the laity " began in the West when wafer-bread, as it is called 
was introduced, owing to the greater danger after that of 
particles falling from the hand."^^ Yet Ritualists now argue in 
favour of wafers precisely because of their supposed freedom 
from this ' danger ' ! The superstitious dread which magical 
theories about the Sacrament induce is by far the most fruitful 
source of ' danger ' in all these cases. Wine has been spilled 
through the impossibility of giving it to a person who will 
neither " take the cup of salvation " nor even lift up the head 
sufficiently to drink properly ; bread has been lost and even 
knocked down through the exaggerated prostrations of 
hysterical devotees. But we are not now contending against 
the practices of others, but claiming the freedom of " ordered 
liberty " within the Established Church for individual lay 
communicants whom certain clergymen debar from Holy 
Communion because they continue to use their ' hands ' in the 
manner which differentiates the human hand from, that of 
anthropoid apes. 

To such persons we would point out that according to the 
Prayer Book " every minister so repelling any shall be obliged to 
give an account of the same to the Ordinary within fourteen 
days after at the farthest. And the Ordinary shall proceed 
against the off*ending person according to the Canon." 
By the common law of England every baptized confirmee 
is entitled, as of right, to receive the Sacrament unless 

^ Not. Euch. p. 72o. 


he be excommunicate, or is being thus " proceeded against." 
It was held in JenJcinsv. Cook (1 P.D. 80) that the Act 1 Ed. VI. 
c. 1 conferred also a statutory right. It enacts that the 
" minister shall not -without a lawful cause deny the same to 
any person that will devoutly and humbly desire it ; any law, 
statute, ordinance, or custom contrary thereunto in any wise 
notwithstanding." Even before the Refoi'mation^ noncon- 
formists were presented for " not taking their rights at Easter." 
It is in the interests of Christian liberty that the encroachments 
of priestly tyranny should be resisted. When St. Paul circum- 
cised Timothy " because of the Jews " (Acts xvi.-3), he was 
charitably waiving his Christian liberty to avoid giving offence. 
But when the very same rite was attempted to be forced upon 
all converts on the ground that " ye needs must," the same Paul 
gave place by subjection, "No, not for an hour " (Gal. ii.-3, 13), 
but rebuked publicly even the Prince of the Apostles whose 
infallibility had been " carried away with their dissimulation." 
Nay, St. Paul went further, and said that if on such grounds as 
these circumcision were even submitted to, " Christ shall profit 
you nothing." 

" Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath 
made us free." 

85 Abp. Warham's Visitation, a.d. 1511, in British Maijazine, Vol. 

To be obtained attlie office of the ChurchAssociation,14, Buckingham Street, fetraiid, London. 

By Subscribers, for distribution free. By others, at 8d per doz. or is M per 100. 
9th Thousand.] 




ANY English Churchmen seem to believe that 
none but members of the Church Association 
have either promoted or approved the prosecution 
of clergymen alleged to have broken the law of 
the Church. There could not, however, be a 
greater mistake, for not only have Ritualists 
advocated such prosecutions but they have them- 
selves actually resorted to them ! 
(i) In 1858 — a twelvemonth before the formation of the 
English Church Union — the Ritualists expressed readiness to 
submit their doctrines to the decision of the Ecclesiastical Courts. 
The Hon. and Rev. R. Liddell, incumbent of St. Paul's, 
Knightsbridge (and a member of the Council of the E.C.U. from 
its commencement), in his "Letter to the Lord Bishop of London, 
on Confession and Absolution " wrote : — 

"I am ready to defend my principles and my practice in the Courts of 
Law, and to abide by the consequences, be they what they may " (page 12). 

No. CIII.] 


(2) The newly-formed E.C.U. was anxious to prosecute Evan- 
gelical clergymen. At their first Annual Meeting, in 1860, the 
Committee reported : — 

" The attention of the Society has been directed to the great scandal 
which has been given by certain clergymen of the Church of England 
consorting with Dissenting preachers in the use of the theatres for public 
worship, in London and elsewhere. An opinion upon the legality of such 
proceedings has been obtained from Dr. Phillimore by the Society, and 
published in the newspapers ; but the difficulty of ' promoting the office of 
Judge' in the Ecclesiastical Courts against offenders is very great, and, 
indeed, it cannot be promoted at all, except at the instance of the incum- 
bent of the parish in which the theatre is situated. It does not, therefore, 
appear to your Committee that there is any hope of putting down this 
profane and degrading practice by an appeal to the law " {First Annual 
Report of the E.C.U., pp. 23-24). 

(3) The Church Review in its issue for June, 1861, thus refers 

to the prosecution of the authors of the " Essays and Reviews " : — 

" Very general dissatisfaction appears to prevail among Church people 
that the bishops have apparently not yet united in taking any decisive 
step towards bringing to justice those clergymen who, as authors of the volume 
of ' Essays and Reviews,' have so evidently falsified the solemn professions 
of faith which they severally made when admitted to the Holy Orders of 
the Church " (p. 103). 

A feeling of intense "dissatisfaction" still prevails among 

" Church people," who think it is high time that the bishops were 

"united" in the work of "bringing to justice those clergymen" 

who, by adopting Romish ritual and doctrine, " have so evidently 

falsified the solemn professions of faith which they severally 

made when admitted to the Holy Orders " of the Church of 


(4) The Annual Report of the Council of the E.C.U. (1861), 

referred thus to the suit, Bp. of Salisliiry v. JVilUams : — 

" A suit, after the most mature deliberation, has been commenced by the 
Bishop of Salisbury. The Council commend him a)idhis sacred cause to the prayers 
and good offices of the Union, though experience of the Ecclesiastical Courts, 
as now constituted, in these our unhappy intestine wars, proves that the 
issue must be doubtful " (Church Review, July, 1S61, p. 140). 

In its September issue, of the same year, the Church Review 

very properly asked, with reference to this suit : — 

" How can a bishop be ready, as he is under so solemn a vow to be, to 
' banish and drive away all erroneous and strange doctrine, contrary to 
God's Word," if, when one of his clergy writes and publishes an infidel 
work, he will not use the means which the law provides for making an example 
of him to his diocese and to the Church?" (p. 166). 


Again : — ■ 

"Foremost in importance, perhaps, in the events of the day, is the very 
proper prosecution by the Bishop of Salisbury of one of his clergy, the Rev. 
Dr. Williams" (January 4th, 1S62, p. i). 

(5) The Church Review, since its commencement in i86i, 
had been the property of the E.C.U.* so that much importance 
attaches to the article on " Prosecutions for Heresy," replying to 
the unfavourable comments of the Press : — 

" Now, to all this ribald nonsense we simply reply that a tainted sheep 
is removed from the flock, not for his punishment — save as that punish- 
ment may be the means of recovery to health — but that the rest of the 
flock may not be infected. To silence the teacher of heresy is the plain duty of 
the Church's governors. Whether that silence shall be only for a definite 
time, or for life, or until the offender has purged himself of his wrong doing, 
ought to depend upon the particulars of each offence. But the object of 
the temporary punishment of an heretical priest must be always considered to 
be, first the protection of the flock intrusted to his charge from his per- 
nicious influence ; and, next, his own correction, with a view to a recantation 
of his error and his submission to her judgment who has authority in 
controversies of faith. If anyone is so unmindful of his Ordination vows 
as to write against the faith to which they have solemnly committed him 
he can only be dealt with by the action of the law. It is the only means by which he 
can be set right. And right he must be set, or he will make others go wrong. 
How can the man who is himself in doubt teach others the truth ? And if 
he have disqualified himself from discharging the prophet's office, why 
should he take the prophet's pay ? . . . The Church's revenues are 
for the teaching of the Church's faith. Let those who do not hold that 
faith be restrained from the sacrilege of appropriating funds which have 
been provided to teach and maintain it " {Church Reviezv, January 31st, 
1863, page 113). ^ ^ 

* The Report of the Council presented at the monthly meeting of the 
Union, May 12th, 1S63, states: — "The Council would, in the first place, 
call to mind the following resolutions, which were unanimously adopted by 
the Union on November 7th, i860 : — 

I. — "That a monthly journal, to be called the journal of the English 
Church Union, shall be printed and published by Aird, 18, Exeter Street, 
Strand, the first number to be issued in January, 1S61." 

2. — "That the Council of the English Church Union, to whom the whole 
charge and responsibility of conducting the Journal shall be and is hereby committed, 
be requested to carry into effect the above resolution." 

" That the Members of the English Church Union shall be and are hereby 
content to receive all notices and reports relating to the business of the 
Union through the columns of the said Journal. In pursuance of the reso- 
lutions, the Council did cause to be printed and published a Journal, which 
a subsequent meeting of the Union decided should be called the Church 
Revieiu, and have continued to take the whole charge and responsibility of 
conducting the same." {Church Review, May i6th, 1863, p. 483.) 

At the same meeting it was resolved that the " English Church Union 
shall cease to be the proprietors of the said Church Revieiv," but that it 
should " be continued the organ of communication and otherwise of the 
English Church Union, subject to such terms and arrangements as the 
President and Council may think proper." {Ibid.) 


Could the Church Association advocate more strongly " the action 
of the law "? It is declared by the E.C.U., speaking through its 
own accredited organ, to be the " only" available means for silencing 
an heretical clergyman. 

(6) The following official resolution was passed at their Meeting, 
April 7th, 1862 : — 

"That, whilst facilitating the bringing to trial of priests for heresy and 
breaches of Church discipline and morahty, there should be a mode of pro- 
cedure laid down for dealing with Archbishops and Bishops, if they should 
offend against the law" {Church Review, April 12th, 1862, p. 229). 

Two months later we find the Ritualists rejoicing because the 
Rev. Mr. Heath had been sentenced by the Judicial Committee 
of the Privy Council to deprivation. The organ of the E.C.U. 
(June 14th, 1862), thus commented on the case: — 

"That highest Court of Appeal having without hesitation affirmed the 
decision of the Court below, that it is not lawful, and cannot be tolerated, 
for one, with Ordination vows upon him, which have solemnly bound him 
to a true profession and promulgation of the Catholic faith, to hold and 
publish opinions of his own, contrary and repugnant to the Articles of 
Religion and the Creeds of the Church. The form of this denial of 
Catholic verities was just that which is taken by the popular ' Evangelical- 
ism,' as it is so called of the day. . . . This, then, is substantially the judg- 
ment of the Privy Council in the case in question. And one who has been 
proved guilty of such an anomaly and scandal, and refuses to revoke his 
errors of the day, is justly sentenced to deprivation. Let us hope it will act as 
a salutary warning" (p. 362). 

"Whilst I utterly deny that Mr. Heath's opinions were identical 
with those held by Evangelicals, it is clear that the E.C.U. would 
have been willing to see Evangelical Churchmen " sentenced to 

(7) The same paper demanded that Bp. Waldegrave should 

be prosecuted as a heretic, because he held views on Baptism 

opposed to those of Ritualists. 

" We call upon all our fellow-Churchmen," said the Church Review, of 
May 17th, 1862, " who take an interest in the maintenance of the Catholic 

It is worthy of notice, as showing the close connection between the 
English Church Union and the Church Review, that its Editor, from its 
commencement down to May, 1864, was also Secretary of the English 
Church Union. This is acknowledged in a " Statement of the President 
and Council," read at the monthly meeting of the Union, May gth, 1864, 
in which occurs the following passage: — ■" The Council have heard that a 
change will shortly take place in the Editorship of the Church Review : and, 
as the offices of Editor of the Review and Secretary of the Union have 
hitherto been held by the same gentleman, his resignation as Secretary has 
inconsequence taken place." {Church Review, May 14th, 1864, p. 477.) 


faith, to unite in this our remonstrance, and to join with us in the demand 
that the heretical bishops {i.e. Waldegrave and Colenso) shall be called to 
.account ; and, unless they formally retract the wicked errors promulgated 
by them, put upon their trial " (p. 301). 

(8) The Great Exhibition, held in 1862, brought to our shores a 
large number of foreign Protestant pastors. Several were invited 
by Evangelical clergymen to officiate in their churches. In its 
Annual Report, June, 1862, the E.CU. said: — 

"The Council have drawn the Bishop of London's attention to the 
subject, with the view of inducing him to exert his authority, as his lordship's 
lamented predecessor, Bp. Blomfield, did in 185 1 ; and have also sub- 
mitted a case for the opinion of eminent counsel, in order to determitie up07i the 
best mode of enforcing the law " {Church Review, June 21st, 1862, p. 388). 

The Church Review, July 26th, 1862, said: — ■ 

" It is not the fault of the English Church Union that the Unordained 
Foreign ' Protestant Pastors ' are allowed to persist in setting both the law 
of the Church and the law of the land at defiance, by officiating in chapels 
of the Church of England in this metropolis. True to the obligations of 
an Association established for the purpose of defending and maintaining 
unimpaired the discipline as well as the doctrine of the Church of England, 
her Council have earnestly endeavoured to enforce the law which requires that no 
one shall presume to officiate ministerially in any of the places of worship 
of the Church who is not in her Holy Orders and thereby duly qualified 
for the sacred charge. But as they with whom, after all, the duty rests of 
giving practical effect to the requirements of the law refuse to act in the 
case, the Council are unable, without embarking in an expensive and 
probably protracted course of litigation, to do more than they have done 
in pursuance of that object " (p. 459). 

It will be observed that in "endeavouring to enforce the law," 
the E.CU. is described as " true to the obligations " with which 
it commenced its career. 

(9) Dr. Pusey formed one of "three aggrieved " ones who, in 

1863, prosecuted, for heresy, Professor Jowett, now Master of 

Balliol College, Oxford, but witli the result that the case against 

Professor Jowett was dismissed by the Oxford Chancellor's Court. 

Dr. Pusey found it necessary, before the case was heard, to write 

to the Times, of February 19th, 1863 : — 

" It is impossible, then, to look upon Professor Jowett's teaching other- 
wise than as apart of a larger whole — a systematic attempt to revolutionize 
the Church of England. The publication of the ' Essays and Reviews ' 
was a challenge to admit that teaching, as one of the recognized phases of 
faith, in the English Church. All which was said of the 'courage ' of the 
Essayists implied this. To leave the challenge unnoticed would have been to 
acquiesce in the claim. . . . Now, if the question was to be tried at all, it 
could be tried only in the Chancellor's Court, since resident members of 


the University, who are not by virtue of any office subject to any other 
jurisdiction, are prohibited by its statutes from suing, or following any suit, 
in any other Court except in the course of appeal. Prosecution is not 
Persecution. It would bean evil day for England when it should be recognized 
that to appeal to the majesty of justice is to contravene truth and justice " (Reprinted 
in Church Review of February 21st, 1863, p. 173). 

The Church Review thus commented on this letter : — 
" None better than Dr. Pusey know the difference between prosecu- 
tion and persecution. There is something noble in the learned Professor's 
vindication of the majesty of law. Evil day, indeed, will it be for England 
when it shall be deemed an act of cruelty to afford a man accused of wrong 
the opportunity of purging himself from that accusation by the solemn 
process of a legal inquiry. Dark will be the gloom which obscures the horizon 
of England's Church when there shall not be to be found among her sons any who 
will have the moral courage to bring before the Courts to which they may be amen- 
able those who are engaged in poisoning the streams of religious knowledge at their 
very fountain head" [Ibid., p. 183). 

(10) In 1864, the Church Review declared: — 

" What we want is a system by which the preacher of heresy within the 
pale of the Church may, not so much be punished — that we care little for 
— but be silenced. We want special enactments by which they may be 
obliged to retract their false teaching. That will be far better than any 
punishment " [Church Review, March 12th, 1864, p. 255). 

(11) In his address, delivered at the Annual Meeting of the 
E.C.U., June 13th, 1864, the President (Hon. Colin Lindsay), 
declared that the Union was " especially " bound to defend and 
maintain the Canon Law of the Church of England with regard to 
discipline, as received in "her Courts of Judicature." 

" With respect to Discipline the same argument applies. That which 
has been laid down in the Canon Law, and has been received and acted 
upon in the Church, especially in her Courts of Judicature, we are, I think, 
clearly bound to ' defend and maintain unimpaired' " [Church Review, JuneiSth, 
p. 603). 

The E.C.U. might still maintain and defend the decisions of 
the Ecclesiastical Courts of Judicature, had they been in favour 
of the Ritualists. 

(12) On December 19th, 1864, the Council of the E.C.U. issued 

a Report on the " Court of Final Appeal in Ecclesiastical Cases," 

which affirmed " the duty of the Sovereign to see justice duly and 

impartially administered, even in cases of Heresy." 

" Churchmen do recognize the Royal Supremacy over all causes, spiritual 
and ecclesiastical, which involve temporal penalties — such as the depriving 
a bishop or priest of his see or benefice ; or the loss of ecclesiastical 
emolument by an unbeneficed ecclesiastic. The lands belonging to 
any bishopric, or the freehold attached to any benefice, or the stipends 


accruing to other clergy, are under the jurisdiction of Temporal Courts, 
and consequently the Sovereign has a right to see justice done in all cases 
where deprivation or any such sentence invxDlves the loss of them " (77;^ 
E.C.U. Circular, January, 1S65, p. 16). 

(13) At a Meeting of the Worcester branch, held November 

1 2th, 1866, " the President of the Union, the Hon. CoHn Lindsay, 

explained the aim and objects of the Union." 

" The desire of the Union is to defend the Ritual Law of the Church of 
England. Many things, we find on investigation, have been left off which 
the Church of England required to be retained, and it is difficult, on some 
points, to ascertain what the law of the Church exactly is. The only method 
of ascertaining it must be found in the Courts of Law. Hence arises the 

necessity for legal investigation When, then, the law has been 

clearly defined, we must be ready to be guided by it ; we must neither fall 
short of it on the one hand, nor go beyond it on the other" {The E.C.U. 
Circular, December, 1866, p. 256). 

(14) One month later, the President delivered another speech 
at a meeting of the Union, in London, declaring that — 

"The English Church Union only defended what the law of the Church 
of England ordered or permitted. Of course, there were some points in which 
the law was not very clear, but ivhatevcr the Courts of Law should decide, the 
Union would of course be bound by" {E.C.U. Circular, January, 1867, p. 11). 

The following extract from a speech of the Rev. Mr. Pixell 

(Member of the E.C.U.), made at the Penrith branch (December 

20th, 1866), as read by the light of subsequent history, is comic : — 

" The Rev. Mr. Pixell said it had been represented to him, by a gentle- 
man of position in this diocese, that it had been stated that this Society 
■was designed to oppose the bishops. It would be another case altogether 
if the bishop were a member of the Society. Suppose the bishop found a 
•clergyman in his diocese, either preaching doctrines contrary to those of 
the ChuTch, or introducing Ritualistic practices ; if he found a clergyman preach- 
ing the doctrine of Transubstantiation, for instance, he appeals to the Church 
Union, and they not only assist him, but take the expense off his shoulders " 
{E.C.U. Circular, Ibid., p. 21). 

The idea of the E.C.U. paying a bishop's expenses in putting 

•down " Ritualistic practices," is, indeed, calculated to raise a smile. 

(15) The Vicar of Atherstone having introduced a " super- 
altar," &c., into the parish church, a Vestry meeting requested the 
Parish churchwarden, Mr. Cordingley, to remove the articles intro- 
duced without any faculty. The churchwarden thereupon, 
believing that he was justified in doing so, removed them. 

The following is an extract from the Annual Report of the 
Union for 1868-9 : — 

"On the application of the Vicar [of Atherstone], who expressed his 


opinion that 'the knowledge of his personal inability to undertake an expensive 
ecclesiastical suit, had induced his opponents to imagine that they could 
resort to acts of violence with perfect impunity, as indeed must be the fact, 
unless some extraneous help can be procured,' the English Church Union 
u7tdertook to initiate proceedings for the defence of his rights" (See E.C.U. 
Circular, 1869, p. 277). 

(16) In the beginning of 1869 the Archbishop of York decided 
to prosecute Mr. Voysey, on which the President of the E.C.U. 
wrote to the Church Association suggesting that each Society 
should pay ^^500 towards the expenses of the prosecution. 

The Church Association, however, declined to do so in company 
with the E.C.U. 

The Hon. C. L. Wood then wrote :— 

" May 6th, 1869. 

" My Lord Archbishop, — The Council of the English Church Union 
authorize me to offer your Grace the sum of ^^500 towards the expenses of 
the prosecution -which yonv Gra.ce is instituting against the Rev. Mr. Voysey," 
&c. &c. 

Evangelical Churchmen will see that others beside the Church 
Association have advocated prosecution of offenders against the 
Church's law, and they will judge what kind of "toleration" 
would be extended to them should Ritualists ever gain control. 
They will estimate at its true value the honesty and consistency of 
the outcry which has been raised against the imprisonment of 
Mr. Green and other misdemeanants. The Church Association has 
prosecuted law breakers, and the teachers of doctrine contrary to 
God's Word written. But, as Dr. Pusey well said, 

"Prosecution is not Persecution." 

[The italics in the quotations are the Author's.] 

To be obtained at the Office of the Church Association, 14, Buckingham Street, Strand, 
London. By Subscribers, for distribution, free. By others at the price of id per dozen 
or 3J per 100. 

10th Thousand.] 







Archbishop of Canterbury 


Delivered at Lambeth, May 11th, 1889, 


Jurisdiction of Bnglisli Metropolitans 


.yffpaga^ Bishops. 

With Notes 

By the Editor of the " C/nirch Litclh'srencer" 

No. CIV.] 


J. F. Shaw & Co., 48, Paternoster Row. 
J. Kensit, 18, Paternoster Row. 


V«.^~fn^^; *^^^vst^— «» 

"Ik. -Si".... 




{re Jurisdiction). 


(^Before His Grace the Abp. of Canterbury, tvith the Vicar- 
General (Sir James Parker Deane, q..c.), cnid the Bishops 
OF London, Winchester, Oxford, Rochester, and Salis- 
bury as Assessors.) 

T a sitting of the Court, May i ith, the Archbishop 
of Canterbury said : — Before I proceed to deHver 
judgment on the protest, I desire to express my 
very great obhgations to the learned and right 
reverend prelates who are with me for their 
goodness in hearing the arguments along with 
me, and giving me the benefit of their advice 
on various points. It will be remembered that 
the appointment of their Lordships as assessors 
was for the hearing of the case on its merits. 
The appearance under protest gave rise to a question totally 
distinct (except on one reserved point) from those affecting the 
merits, and their Lordships could not be called upon to discharge 
the office of assessorship, properly speaking, in considering the 
validity of jurisdiction which potentially affects themselves aud 
their acts. It will therefore be understood that the judgment 
which I shall presently deliver on that part of the protest which 


concerns the jurisdiction only is not to be looked upon as other 
than my own judgment. The Archbishop then proceeded to 
deliver Judgment as follows : 


The Court has now to give its decision on the protest raised on 
behalf of the Lord Bishop of Lincoln against the jurisdiction of the 
Court in this matter. First, it will be necessary to consider the 
case stated in the protest ; Secondly, the authorities and the argu- 
ments against and in support of the archiepiscopal jurisdiction ; 
Thirdly, to state the conclusion arrived at, and declare the course to 
be taken upon the decision. 

I. The Protest. 
The protest says : — 

I. That " the citation issued does not cite the Lord Bishop of Lincoln 
to appear in any Court or in any proceedings whereof the laws, canons, 
and constitutions ecclesiastical of this Church and realm and of the 
Province of Canterbury take cognizance." 2. "That by the said 
laws, canons, and constitutions, the Lord Bishop of Lincoln is not 
bound and ought not to appear before or be tried by the Archbishop 
sitting alone, or to appear before or to be tried by the Vicar- General 
of the Archbishop ; and that the fact that the Archbishop proposes to 
sit with assessors does not confer a jurisdiction which he would not 
otherwise have." 3. "That by the said laws, canons, and constitu- 
tions, the Lord Bishop of Lincoln as a Bishop of the Province of 
Canterbury ought not to be tried for the offences (if any) with which 
he is charged in these proceedings save by the Archbishop of Canter- 
bury together with the other Bishops of the province, his comprovincials, 
assembled either in the Convocation of the said province or otherwise." 
4. " That the charges set forth in the citation are not such charges as 
by the said laws, canons, and constitutions, the said Lord Bishop of 
Lincoln is bound, or ought to be tried for before or by any Court of 
ecclesiastical jurisdiction." 

The consideration of this fourth point was deferred, without 
prejudice to his lordship's position, until the case (in the event of 
the protest being overruled) should come to be heard on its merits. 

By the first three articles of the protest, two questions are raised. 
(1) Has the Archbishop, either sitting alone or with assessors in 
the Archiepiscopal Court of his Province, urisdiction ? 2. Has 

the Archbishop jurisdiction only when sitting together with 
the other Bishops of the Province assembled in Convocation 
"or otherwise"? The word "otherwise" is not explained. 
But the second question (2) would not require consideration 
if the first (i) were decided in the affirmative. If it were 
proved that the Archbishop has jurisdiction when sitting in Con- 
vocation, this would not in itself prove that he has jurisdic- 
tion only when so sitting. It is obvious that such jurisdiction 
might exist concurrently with a jurisdiction exercised by the Arch- 
bishop alone, or with assessors. 

II. The Arguments. 

The arguments in support of the protest and the authorities 

cited have extended over a wide range. The records of early 

synods and councils have been much relied upon. 

Canons of Councils. / . i i i i 

As documents ancient and solemnly accepted, 
these records deserve all the scholarship and attention with 
which they have been handled by the learned counsel. Not 
for this immediate purpose only, but for ourselves always and 
our beliefs, they have the highest value and weight. It is 
desirable, therefore, to ascertain, if possible, exactly what kind and 
amount of support the contention receives from their authority. 
General impressions are easily created even by raising a contention 
on such grounds, and then "conscientious" difficulties gather 
round those impressions. It is therefore quite worth while to 
examine in some detail the canons cited, but only for the purpose 
for which they are cited. The argument which was advanced is 
very clear and connected. The first canon of the 
Council of Chalcedon received the canons of " all 
the holy synods " held before it. The English Church receives 
the Council of Chalcedon as one of the four general councils. All 
the canons, therefore, of this and of the earlier synods referred to 
have become and, if the law has not been altered, are still part of 
the law of the realm. It is agreed, at the same time, that if the 
directions contained in ancient canons are ever so clear and definite, 
they still cannot determine any question of canonical or other law 
in England unless they have been received and put in use. There 
is, however, no doubt that in matters of faith and doctrine the 
decrees of the first four general councils have been so received, as 

declared in the statute law (25 Hen. VIII., c.19, s. 7 ; i Eliz., c. i, 
s. 36). Canons also therein made, when strictly applicable, and 
when not " contrariant to the law of the Church and realm," have 

We proceed then to consider how far this authority extends in 
the present case. Printed extracts in support of the view that the 
canons determine the method of procedure in trial of Bishops were 
put in by the learned counsel for the Bishop of Lincoln. Among 
these are two of the canons called Apostolic, and other canons of 
the Councils of Constantinople, Antioch, and Chalcedon. We 
will take them in order, and consider both their contents and their 
reception. The canons called Apostolic probably 

"Apostolic. -^ . . , ^ -^ . . ■' 

belong, in the opinion of the most learned critics, 
for the most part to a period in which the Crown or Govern- 
ment had entered into no relations with the Church. For this 
reason, as well as on account of other social changes, many 
of the most important of these canons nowhere now survive 
in use, and could nowhere be acted upon in the Catholic Church 
as it is. Of Canon 27 (otherwise ^3 or 35), the part which has 
seemed to touch this question is (as printed by the learned counsel) 
— " The Bishops of every province ought to own him who is chief 
among them, and esteem him as their head, and to do nothing 
extraordinary (irepir-ov) without his consent ; but every one those 
things only which concern his own parish (Trapoida) and the 
country subject to it. Nor let him [that is chief Bishop] do any- 
thing [extraordinary] without the consent of all. — [Johnson II., 
19.]" But (not to discuss the exactness of this translation) if any- 
where the chief Bishop has a Court and jurisdiction, that which he 
does regularly within this, in the exercise of that jurisdiction, is not 
" extraordinary." The canon assumes that he has some authority 
more than diocesan ; and to allege the canon generally against a 
jurisdiction not otherwise proved to be outside this, is to beg the 
question. Again, Canon 66 (otherwise 73 or 74) directs that the 
Bishops shall summon before themselves any credibly accused 
Bishop, and try to secure his appearing, and shall sentence him. 
But even if this canon were held now to empower Bishops to cite 
one of their own number before them, it still could have no force 
to override a jurisdiction otherwise shown to reside in their Metro- 
politan. Next, as to the reception of these canons in our Church. 

It was argued that the Apostolic canons were held to be included 
among those adopted by the first canon of the General Council of 
Chalcedon, and therefore received by the Church of England, and 
so part of our own law. It is, however, matter of history (I refer 
to Hefele, " Hist, of Councils," App. vol. I.) that the Apostolic 
canons were adopted by the Synod in TruUo, a.d. 692, under the 
Patriarch John Scholasticus, into the code of the Greek Church. 
That would not have been necessary if they had been held to have 
been already adopted by the Council of Chalcedon in a.d. 451. 
After the Council in Trullo they remained binding on the Greek 
Church only, until, after having been added to the list of apocryphal 
books condemned by Papal authority in the sixth century (inserted 
probably by Hormisdas in the Gelasian Decree, (" Labbe," T. v. 
c. .390), they regained credit, and the first fifty of them were in the 
eleventh century added to the orthodox rules (rcgulis orthodoxis) of 
the Roman Church. (" Hefele," App. vol. I.) It is therefore 
difficult to see how these two canons, unless they have had some 
definite reception here, which is not shown, are not still formally 
part of " that foreign canon law" as to which Sir W. Phillimore 
rightly, " as an English lawyer, denied that it could be put 
into effect." They do not, as we have seen, apply to this 
case even as to their contents. And if they did, still (precious as 
they are as illustrations of early Christian practice) they are not 
part of the discipline of the English Church. We 

^'noti^.""^'^""' *^°"^^ ^'^^^^ *° t^^^ ^'-^*^^^ canon of Constantinople. 
The reception of this canon is even more ques- 
tionable. Critics agree that it was not passed at all in the Second 
General Council — the great Council of Constantinople of the 
year 38 r — but at the synod which was held there a year later. 
Four canons only were passed at the council. (" Hefele," B. vii., 
sec. 98, " Eeveridge," " Ballcrini," &c., ap. Hef.) The so-called 
fifth and sixth were not read apparently at Chalcedon. They are 
not alluded to by the Greek historians of the council, and were not 
included in any of the four early Latin versions of its canons ; and 
as late as the year 865 Pop^ Aicolas the Great writes of this sixth 
canon to the Emperor JMichael at Constantinople, as being " not 
found among us (in the West), though asserted to be kept among 
you (in the East)." ("Hefele," 1. c. and sub can. 6; " Jaffe 
Regesta PP.R./' sub anno, j " Nic. I. Ep. 8 ad Michaclem Imp. 

' Proposueram, &c.' " — " Labbe," Venet. 1729, v. 9, c. 132 1 E.) 
It was not passed, then, in the Second General Council ; there is 
no evidence that it was sanctioned in the third ; and it was not in 
the code at Rome, nearly two centuries after it has been argued 
that it was received at Hattield, and became binding to this day as 
the law of the English Church. But what is its purport ? It 
excludes heretics, schismatics, and excommunicate persons from 
bringing ecclesiastical suits against Bishops. It excludes ecclesias- 
tical suits against Bishops from being instituted in the Temporal 
Courts ; and from being instituted in general councils (or great 
synods), except on appeal from the provincial synods, which ought 
to receive and hear such causes. If, then, this canon had been 
received in England it might probably have been the earliest 
authority for such jurisdiction in the provincial synod as may 
possibly exist in it from some source ; although that reception could 
not have excluded concurrent developments which a more organized 
period was sure to produce in the modes of jurisdiction. But even 
that probability is extinguished by the evidence that it was not 
known in the West until long after the Council of 

Antioch. . ° 

Hatfield. We come, thirdly, to the canons adduced 
from the synod of Antioch, which, although it was in reality only 
an Oriental synod, without any representation of the Western 
Church, has acquired large authority, apparently, as Hefele thinks, 
through the goodness of its enactments. Of the ninth canon we 
need not speak ; its point has been touched under the Apostolic 
Canon 27 (^^ or s^), of which it is an expansion — unless that 
is an abridgment of this Canons 12 (not ' J i ')» ^4> ^5> ^^^^ 
with cases of Bishops who have been tried or deposed by 
synods. They do not order that Bishops should be tried onfi/ 
by synods, but they speak of this as the obvious mode of pro- 
cedure at that time— which of course it was. But the 13th canon 
was quoted by Sir W. Phillimore as if it did order that mode 
distinctly. " All is null,' he read from Johnson, ' that is done by 
bishops coming without invitation' (i.e., intruding foreign bishops), 
' and they are to be deposed by a sacred synod." The original 
will bear no such interpretation. It is ^' KaOtjprjixivoy iprevdev i'l^ij 
tiTTo T7]g ayiag avrocov." That describes what nearly answers to 
the phrase "ipsofacto excommunicated, and not restored until," &c., 
in our own canons of 1604 ; and " the Holy Synod," is that then 

sitting (compare in Canon 14, "tco^e ry nym arvyu^)"). So the 
latest historian of the councils takes it (Hefele). So the early Latin 
translators: Dionysius Exiguiis, "Ex hoc jam damnatus a sancta 
concilio" ("Labbe," t. ii., c. 601, Ven.), and Isidorus Mercator, 
" tanqnam depositus a sancta synodo et propter hujusmodi prae- 
sumptionem jam praedamnatus" ("Labbe," T. ii., c. 609). All 
men were to regard the intruding bishop as ipso facto deposed by 
his own act. This was the only sense in which the canon could 
have been accepted or known in the West, and there is no direction 
at all for the trial of a bishop by a synod. On the contrary, the 
nth canon (which was not quoted) gives a distinct indication, at 
least in certain cases, of another mode of trial. It provides for a 
bishop, if necessity arose, transferring his cause directly to the 
judgment of the Crown (the Emperor)— not limiting the kind of 
cause to civil causes — by permission, and with commendatory letters 
from his Metropolitan, or comprovincials. Lastly, we 
come to the General Council of Chalcedon, a.d. 451. 
I do not understand how the ninth canon can be alleged in support 
of the contention raised.* It is a purely clerical canon, concerned 
only with disputes and complaints arising among clergy. It places 
the civil affairs nf the clergy, as well as ecclesiastical matters, under 
the control of the bishops. The highest judicial authority therein 
named for the greatest causes is the Exarch of the " diocese," 
as Superior Metropolitan, or the "Throne" (Patriarch) of Con- 
stantinople. (" Hefele," B. xi., § 200, pp. 107-8, Goschler.) It 
seems needless to say that such a canon has never been received 
here. But, indeed, all the canons of Chalcedon, including the first, 
were applicable only to the Greek churches. The Western repre- 
sentatives had departed from the council as soon as questions of 
faith were over, and long before the canons of discipline were passed. 
These last were all proposed and passed together in the 15th ses- 
sion, and it is held that only the first six sessions, those which dealt 
with matters of faith, had an CEcumenical character. To sum up 
Summary of ^^^ result of this closer examination of the ancient 

Ancient Canons, c^nous alleged in support of the protest, it amounts 

* Archdeacon Sinclair, in his Charge of 1852, p. 210, cites De Marca as 
saying, " Concilia provincialia celebrari desierant tempore concilii Chal- 
cedonensis. Idem de sua astate testantur Justinianus Zonaras, Balsamo, 
et Matthaeus Blastares." — [Ed. C. /.] 

to this : The trial of bishops by synods is not enacted in them, 
though this is imphed in the English version which was cited of 
one of the canons of Antioch. Such trial is treated as a usual and 
obvious function of synods. But deposition in other form, and trial 
in other form, and before the Metropolitan or the Patriarch, is 
already recognized. The conclusion which the court must draw is 
that it cannot satisfy itself from the evidence alleged that the 
authority of early Churchcouncils establishes that the trial of a bishop 
ought to rest with a synod of bishops only. It is not necessary to 
repeat what has been observed as to the absence or slightness of 
the evidence for the reception in the Western Church of the 
particular canons alleged. The learned counsel argued that all 
were covered by the first canon of Chalcedon, and although that 
might be true for the Greek church, yet the disciplinary canons 
of that council have never been conceived to have CEcumenical 
authority. I have thought it important to enter minutely into this 
part of the argument because, when it has been elaborately main- 
tained that the primitive councils alleged command a mode of trial 
inconsistent with that in use and now proceeding, even if the 
jurisdiction of the Court be established, a certain prejudice is 
evoked, which, under present circumstances, it is right to dispel. 
The Court itself, owing to the character of the protest, has been 
placed on its defence, as it were, in a singular manner, which 
would not have been the case had these pleadings been advanced 
elsewhere. It will be understood that nothing here 
Distinction be- said impugus the authority of the first four General 

tween doctrine -i^^i/- r-> tti n 

and discipline. Councils — the first periection, as Hooker calls 
them, ' of so gracious a thing." But their work was 
twofold, and it is necessary to observe the distinction between the 
two parts. Their symbols or creeds, their articles of faith, and 
definitions of doctrine are our rule, as a faithful expression of the 
sense of Holy Scripture on the great verities. Thus, in the case 
referred to by Sir Walter Phillimore of " Kemp v. Wickes and 
others," the authority assigned to the four councils seems limited 
to matters of faith and doctrine. But the canons of order 
and discipline passed in those same councils, and at less impor- 
tant synods as to matters of ecclesiastical procedure and legal 
practice are on another footing. The creeds and sacred definitions 
deal with things eternal. The canons and the discipline deal with 


things of spiritual concernment, but in temporal regions and for 
temporary uses. The canons themselves take into account the 
conditions of their own times and countries. So must the eccle- 
siastical procedure of every age and nation. The procedure and 
practice of Courts must of necessity vary with the constitution of 
a country, and the institutions, organizations, and usages of com- 
munities, both ecclesiastical and civil. These have been in per- 
petual movement and life, and those canons as they stand do 
not now answer to the actual practice of any Christian Church. 
That is no disparagement of their excellence. They do not claim 
to bind a scheme of judicature on the Church at large or the Church 
of ages. They will not bear the strain which this contention puts 
on them. But whatever system of procedure appears in those 
canons, it has been argued that the canons form part of the law of 
the land, inasmuch as they have been accepted in terms by synods 
of the English Church. Reference was made to 
the Council of Hatfield, the Synods of the Northern 
and Southern Provinces in 787, and to the Canons of iElfric 
("Haddan and Stubbs," iii., pp. 141, 448, 450). 

I. The Council of Hatfield, a.d. 680. The conclusions of the 
Council of Hatfield (whatever be its authority) had reference, so 
far as we can ascertain, to nothing but matters of faith and 
doctrine, unless there was some rearrangement of English dioceses. 
It was called by the Archbishop "in order' (as Dr. Bright 
accurately says, "Early Eng. Ch. Hist.," p. 317) ' to certify 
the Pope as to the orthodoxy of the Church under his rule." 
Along with other dogmatic declarations it "enforced,' he says, 
* the theology of the five CEcumenical Councils which had then 
been holden." Its members describe themselves as " We who, 
with Theodore, have expounded the Catholic faith " (" Haddan 
and Stubbs," vol. iii., p. 141 ff.). Phrases describing as the one 
object of their assembly the affirmation of " the right and orthodox 
faith," "the divinely inspired doctrine," abound in their synodal 
letter and in Bede's narrative. It is said that Agatho had proposed 
that it should also examine " de ecclesiasticis statutis " p. 133, 
but there is not one word as to the reception of any disciplinary 
canons, or discipline at all ; and this is the more remarkable if 
there were any theories as to the trial of Bishops, because a 
commissary from the Pope attended the council, and at this very 

moment one of themselves, the great Wilfrid, was at Rome 
complaining that he had been improperly deprived. 

The learned counsel next cited the Synods of the 
^ Chefsea^"'' North and South, or, as we might call them, the 

Double Synod of Finchale and Chelsea, held in 
787 A.D. under the Papal legates (" Haddan and Stubbs," vol. iii., 
p. 447). These deal with church order very closely — regulating 
monasteries, judicial proceedings, marriage, churches, services, &c. 
They order that any Bishop in any way concerned in the death of 
a King shall be deposed and degraded. But they do not touch 
the process. They receive the " synodal edicts of the six universal 
councils (the sixth having now been held), together with the decrees 
of the Roman pontiff's." We have already examined the original 
bearing upon the present question of the canons of the Four 
Councils which we receive ; and the two synods neither add new 
force to them, nor interpret them as interfering with that spiritual 
jurisdiction already exercised in England. It has been already 
observed that some of those canons were at this date not received 
in the West. 

The other quoted example of synods of the 
^"oTlffr'ic^''"""''" English Church " having so accepted in terms ' 

those canons, that they now ' form part of the law 
of the land," was the canons of ^Ifric, a.d. 970 (Wilkins' 
Cone, vol. i., p. 250. Johnson's "English Canons," part !., p. 382). 
I suppose the contention was serious. But in fact the Canons of 
iElfric represent no synod or legislative authority. They are a 
Bishop's charge. A charge written for the use of the Bishop of 
Dorchester, by JElirlc, his "humilis frater." And there is no 
more to say about them. 

There is, therefore, no evidence that the early 
'^of^Bilhops.^'^" English synods either formally received or enjoined 

any special form of procedure in the trial of Bishops. 
If we examine the early English illustrative instances they bear 
not only the same negative witness as the documents, but witness 
which contradicts the contention. The first alleged was that of 
„.. , J Winfred of Lichfield. The " Anglo-Saxon Chro- 

nicle " was quoted to prove that he was deprived 
by a synod, contrary to the nearly contemporary statement of Bede 
(Bede was twenty years old when Theodore died), that he " was 


deprived by the Archbishop Theodore " ("Bede, H. E.," 1, iv. c. 6). 
If the passage had been genuine the chronicle itself belongs to two 
centuries after the event. But the passage is no part of the original 
Chronicle. The translation may take no notice of the fact, but the 
critical editi(m of the original shows the passage to be a late inter- 
polation — mixed with a spurious charter and probably of the twelfth 
century (Rolls' edition, vol. i., p. ^^ ; vol. ii., p. 29). 

In the second instance, that of Wilfrid of York, 

Wilfrid. , .... , ... 

we have, against all conjectures about synodical 
action, Wilfrid's own written petition to the Pope, given in his 
own words by his friend and biographer. Wilfrid says that he 
had been deprived {priualum) by Theodore (of whom he speaks 
•with great veneration) "absque conseiisu cujuslihet episcopi." It 
was urged that Wilfrid was " given his place in a synod assembled 
in Rome," and that, " before he had been ultimately restored he 
was (thus) recognized by the Pope as a lawful Bishop," that is, 
that Theodore's deprivation of him was not recognized. But the 
facts are these. Besides the synod in which his appeal was heard, 
there were two synods at Rome while Wilfrid was there (" Haddan 
and Stubbs," iii., pp. 131, 136) 5 the one in which Wilfrid sate as 
a Bishop was after his restoration ; in the synod which was held 
while he was still under the archiepiscopal sentence he was not 
present, although its special business was the state of the Church 
of England, without reference to his own difficulties. Yet more, 
the Bishop of Toul, who was Wilfrid's travelling companion to 
Rome, did sit in that synod. So far, therefore, the action of the 
Pope involves a recognition of Theodore's jurisdiction. Lastly, in 
the sentence of restoration not a doubt is thrown on Theodore's 
jurisdiction. Wilfrid had asked for a decision as to whether he 
was " privatus" (p. 138). The sentence was, " Episcopatum, 
<juem nuper habuit, recipiat." But the partitioning of Wilfrid's 
diocese into three, which Theodore had carried in council with the 
King, was affirmed, though the persons appointed to them were to 
be changed. As the clima.x of the conduct for which Wilfrid was 
deprived was his threatening to appeal to Rome, he receives from 
the Pope much commendation for his dutifulness, but he is replaced 
only in the diminished see. 

The legendary story of Wulfstan, who was not 

deprived, and was not tried in any way which could 


be called synodical, seems to have no bearing on the question 
except as showing by what authority Anglo-Saxon and Norman 
bishops believed that they held their sees (Freeman's " Norman 
Conquest," vol. iv., p. 379)> The court has considered also the 
other instances up to the end of the 12th century, but they 
only show what is unquestioned, and continues to appear, that 
there was more than one way in which episcopal causes were 

With respect to the complaint against Becket for 

Becket. . . . . 

suspending the Bishop of Salisbury, it should be 
observed that it is not rested upon the use or abuse of legatine 
power, since the complaint is of his acting "absque {episcopormn) 
consUio," or, as they state it themselves, "■ priusquam causa com- 
provincialiiim aut aliquorum etiam fuisset arhilrio comprohata." It 
is exactly the same ground as Wilfrid alleged against Theodore, and 
it has not even been argued that the objection was entertained 
("Materials for Hist, of Becket," vol. v., pp. 406, 421, put in by 
Sir W. Phillimore). 

After reviewing the earliest evidence, the canons, 
%'nods.'^^ ° their reception elsewhere, their reception in England, 

the instances of jurisdiction, the court fails to satisfy 
itself that up to that date there was an exclusive jurisdiction over 
these cases in a synod of bishops. Before we leave this division of 
the subject, the three passages should be noticed which were cited 
to prove that the Antient Canons have Parliamentary authority as 
law in England. The first (25 Hen. VIU., c. 19, 

"Parliamentary" \ • i • i ■ i • 

Authorityof Canon s. "]) Simply coutinues the authority, whatever it 
was, which the canons already possessed. The 
second (i Eliz. c. i, s. ^6) relate to the Four Councils only as 
ruling what was heresy, when they rested on Scripture. Also it 
has long disappeared from our Statute-book.* The third was found in 
an Exhortation in the Ordinal, where there is a reference to "antient 
Canons," which echo the Scripture precept, " not to be hasty in 
laying on of hands." It was said that the reference is to the second 
and eighth Apostolic Canons. I do not see the resemblance ; but 

* The section was repealed in 1640, and has "disappeared," but not the 
Act (i Eliz. c. I.). As Bp. Fitzgerald observed, the words of that section 
were merely "negative. They do not require that everything which fulfils 
these conditions should be reputed heresy : but that nothing which failed 
to fulfil them should be so reputed." — [Ed. C. /.] 


the allusion is undoubtedly to the Fourth Council of Carthage, 
which is actually referred to by name in one of the old Latin Ponti- 
ficals in the corresponding exhortation ("Martene, Ant. Ecc. Rit.," 
vol. ii., p. 386). It will scarcely be argued that the canon of the 
Fourth Council of Carthage became English law through that 
quotation; but if it would not, neither would the others. This is 
all the Parliamentary authority advanced. But it was argued that 
English usage shows that at a later time, "The true 
mode of judging a bishop is not by the archbishop 
alone, but by Convocation, Council, or Synod, whatever phrase you 
choose to employ." It had before been put to the court (and no 
exception is taken to the statement), that Convocation is a provincial 
synod or council, and as such has certain judicial functions. There- 
fore we proceed at once to the consideration of the cases which 
have been cited as distinct incontrovertible examples of trials of 
bishops by Convocation. 

Trials in Convocation. 

The first case, urged as a forcible proof that the jurisdiction of 
the Archbishop over Bishops must be exercised in Convocation is 
that of the Coadjutor of Hereford in 1393. He was 
^Heieford."^ summoned to trial by the Archbishop with high 
assertion (it is said) of his judicial authority, but 
summoned before Convocation and tried there. It is, however, a 
case of no importance. The Coadjutor of Hereford was not a 
Bishop ; and he was a member of Convocation. He was cited to 
appear before the Archbishop at the next Convocation, which he 
was bound to attend. It is not pretended that the Archbishop 
might not have corrected him by his visitatorial power and in other 
ways ; and it is not to be imagined that a Court such as the present 
would be convened to decide a case of negligence in a presbyter 
who was commissary to his sick Bishop. Many cases found their 
way, as this did, to Convocation to meet the convenience, or feeling 
of the Bishop. Gibson (" Synodus Anglic." ch. xiv., p. 169) 
writes thus : — " If a Bishop in his diocesan Court upon examina- 
tion did not see cause to deliver over the party accused to the 
secular power, either the degree or evidence of the crime falling 
short. . . . the person was frequently brought before Convo- 
cation." The reluctance of the Bishops to hand over the person 


to the secular arm, and the odium aroused when they did so, are 
visible through the whole 14th century. Convocation did no 
more in the way of inflicting penalties than the Bishop himself 
could have done if he had chosen. The " Calendar of Authenti- 
cated Trials for Heresy prior to the year 1533 " (" 2d Appendix Ecc. 
Courts Comm. Report ") shows how many cases of this class, in 
which the process was initiated in Courts of Bishops and of the 
Archbishop, came thus before Convocation. The Coadjutor's case- 
is one of discipline taking the same course. It has no relation to 
trials of Bishops. 

The second case is that of Bp. Cheney in 157 1. 

But the case of Bp. Cheney is no trial by synod. 
It is a mere case of wilful contumacy in and against Convocation. 
At the opening of every Convocation it is declared that all who are 
absent without necessary and approved reason will be visited as 
contumacious with the canonical penalty 5 " intendimus. . . . 
contumacias eorum qui absentes fuerint canonice punire." The 
canonical penalty is the " major excommunication " (Gibson's 
** Synodus Anglicana," pp. 27, 26) : and there is an instance 
of many members being suspended for such contumacy by Arch- 
bishop Whitgift, "a celehrationc divinorum et oimnmodo exercitio 
ecdesiasticcB jurisdictmiis" in 1586 (Gibson's "Appendix," 
p. 163). Bp. Cheney avoided signing the Thirty-nine Articles for 
nine years, from 1562 to 157 i (being "popishly affected"*) ; and 
wilfully absenting himself from the Convocation which was to sign 
them (before publication) in the latter year, was excommunicated 
for contumacy and contemptf according to the forms of Convocation 
(see Strype's " Parker," vol. i. p. 51 ff. and Appendix). The 

suspension of Bishop Goodman in 1640 is equally 

Bp. Goodman. ^ K ^ ^ . . , , 7 / 

destitute of any appearance of a trial by synod. It 
was an act, and an arbitrary and oppressive act, of the President 

* Campian, the Jesuit, praised Cheney as being "more tolerable than the 
rest of the heretics, and professing the true presence of Christ on the altar." 
{Campian's Works, p. 365.) In 1575 Abp. Grindal threatened Cheney with 
inhibition for ordaining without letters 6.iraissovy{Grindal'sRegister, F. 144. B.) 
—[Ed. C.I.'] 

t Bp. Geste writing about him to Lord Burleigh in May, 1571, said, 
" My Lord of Gloster is pronounced excommunicate by my Lord of 
Canterburie, and shall be cited to answer before him and other bishops to 
certain errors which he is accused to hold." — S. P. Dom. Eliz. Vol. 78, 
^fo- 37-— LED. C. / ] 


and Houses of Convocation. The account is minutely given in the 
Acts of Convocation for that year, (See " Gibson's App.," pp. 
51 flf.) The signing of the draft canons of 1640 having been fixed 
for May 29th, Bishop Goodman alone of the two Houses refused to 
sign. Three canonical monitions to him to sign were compressed 
into the time occupied by the rest in signing. He still refused. 
The Archbishop then not only pronounced (decrevit) that he should 
be deprived, but ordered his Official Principal to draft the sentence 
of deprivation. He then took the sense of the House, which, as 
■well as his own voice, was necessary to the validity of the act. In 
Convocation of course all Bishops are " assistentes,'' and all have 
votes. The majority, which was all that was required, was seen 
to be for deprivation 5 and Goodman signed. The Archbishop then 
required him to declare whether he signed " voluntarily, ex animo, 
without equivocation, evasion, or mental reservation." Goodman 
replied that "he had signed," and would say no more. Nevertheless, 
both Houses pursued the case, and both resolved that now he should 
be suspended from office and benefice for the " scandal " he had 
caused. Further, the Lower House petitioned the Archbishop that 
he should be called upon to take a new oath required by the new 
canon just signed, which had not yet received the Royal assent, and 
to answer the question which had been put to him. He was ordered 
not to leave London (Westminster ?) until he had taken the oath, 
and the Archbishop then suspended him {cum consensu tot'iiis 
Synodi . . . suspendendum fore decrevit). This all took place in 
one day, and in one sitting. 

Thus the two instances supposed to establish the trial of Bishops 
before Convocation are, in fact : — (i) One of them, a mere putting 
in execution the canonical penalty for the enforcement of attendance; 
(2) the other, in form simply an Act of Convocation. 

But it was argued that the voting of the Bishops in Bishop 
Cheney's and Bishop Goodman's cases showed that they were 
judicial proceedings. But this is an error ; a majority would be 
necessary in any " Act " of Convocation. The Royal assent to any 
" Act " requires the " greater number of the Bishops whereof the 
Presidentto be one." But " in trials before Convocation the members 
do not vote " (evidence of Canon Stubbs (Bp.of Oxford), in Eccle- 
siastical Courts Commission Report, Q. 1 155). The same great his- 
torical authority writes (App. i. to Report already referred to, p. 45). 



" Before the Reformation the Provincial Convocation may be fairly 
regarded as a court attendant on and assessing to the Archbishop, 
discussing cases of litigation or correction which were brought before 
him therein or were laid by him before his clergy. But we are inclined 
to believe that so far as jurisdiction was concerned, the authority 
resided in the Metropolitan and not in the Synod." 

This passage perhaps may seem to illustrate how the function 
of Convocation as Assessors to the Archbishop in the exercise of 
his jurisdiction may be discharged by certain members of the body. 
Further, in claiming Convocation (regarded as the 
Lower House as Provincial Synod) as the proper Court for the trial 
of a Bishop it was not explained how the necessity 
for the concurrence of the majority of the Lower House, which is 
required for the validity of the Acts of Convocation, is consistent 
with the supposed requirements of antient councils that a Bishop 
should be tried by comprovincial s only. However, it is not neces- 
sary at present to go further into the question. It 
igi ommission. ^^^^ ^j^^ ^^ observed that from the year 1551 to 

1562 no authority was likely to be producible bearing either way 
upon the right of the Archbishop, whether in his own Court, or in 
Synod, or Convocation, to try a suffragan, for as long as the Court 
of High Commission lasted, all important offenders in causes 
touching doctrine or ritual were brought before it, as well as 
persons, whether laity or clergy, accused of immorality or mis- 
conduct, recusancy or nonconformity (Hist. App. (I) p. 50). 
Lastly, while in the beginning of the 17th century 
the opinion of the Judges in Whiston's case, given 
with the reservation that upon argument they might alter their 
view, is in support of some judicial power in Convocation, it 
remains uncertain whether they intended (" Brodrick and Fre- 
mantle," pp, 325, 326) that it could be exercised against persons 
or only against doctrines as in books ; and it is in no way adverse 
to a jurisdiction residing elsewhere, as in the Metropolitan. 
The Court therefore holds that while Convocation 
-'Tn'MelropoHtin'.' '^ » Court of which the President scdei judicialiter 
with the Bishops assistenti's, and while there may 
be causes, processes, or controversies which would be necessarily 
and usefully heard and determined there (proper conditions being 
fulfilled), it has not been established that it is the only proper 


Court for the trial of a Bishop, and no instance of such a trial /las h'fn 
adduced. It now remains to consider the arguments on the juris- 
diction of the Metropohtan. The antient canons themselves, 
within even the 70 years from Constantinople to Chalccdon, show 
the tendency towards that centralization which was impossible 
before the Church emerged from isolation and oppression, and from 
the first traces of this there appears, all through, a jurisdiction 
vesting in and exercised by the Metropolitan, sometimes witli, 
sometimes only in a Synod, and sometimes separately. Thus we 
observed that as early as a.d. 451 the highest trials between 
Bishops are to be taken before either the Exarch of the Dioecesis, 
or the Archbishop of Constantinople. And thus we find still 
earlier aniong a small number of Bishops who assembled in a 
counter-Synod at Ephesus in a.d. 441 some Bishops who "many 
years before had been deposed for grave causes by their own 
^letropolitans — Trpo iroWwv iruit' tKi ceiva'iQ alriaig KaOijpijfiEvoi utto 
Twt' lci(i)v fij]-poTroXiTwy." {" Epist, Synod Cone. Eph. ad Coel- 
estinum," Labbe, Paris, v. iii., p. 364). In England some of the 
early Synods which tried Bishops were not Synods of Bishops or 
clergy exclusively, 'and up to the end of the twelfth century sentences 
pronounced by the Archbishop alone, in the exercise of this jurisdic- 
tion, are sometime appealed or protested against to King or to 
Pope, but never set aside (if set aside at all) on the ground that he 
had no such jurisdiction. It is scarcely necessary 

Legatine authority. . ■' •' 

to enter upon the question of the legatine jurisdic- 
tion, since no cases are alleged as examples of its being employed 
in trials of this kind. But as it has been suggested that the Arch- 
bishop might have had powers as ' Legatus natus ' which he had not 
as Metropolitan, I may refer to the opinion of one of the most 
competent authorities of our own or other times. The acceptance 
of the legatine commission by the Archbishops 

" is of less constitutional importance than might at first sight seem 
probable." .... (Its) " effect was not the creation of new 
legatine Courts, but the clothing the ordinary Courts with some 
shadow of legatine authority." " England resisted the intrusion of 
foreign legates, sent from time to time to ... . supersede the 
action of the Metropolitans. . . . Not only the Kings, but Arch- 
bishops like Anselm, remonstrated against the aggression. According 
to Anselm, the Archbishops of Canterbury, by the law and custom of 



the Church, possessed all the rights and powers that were by the dele- 
gation of the Pope's powers bestowed upon the legates — a statement 
which, interpreted by history, means that they were customarily free 
and independent of foreign interference in the administration of their 
province. But the practical decision of the investiture controversy 
. . . seems to have impressed the English Bishops with the 
belief that it was better to seek for themselves the office of legate than 
to leave the Church open to arbitrary and mischievous interference 
from without." (Bp. of Oxford, Hist. App. (i) to Report of Com- 
mission on Ecclesiastical Courts, 1883, p. 27). 

Against the continuous positive evidence of juris- 
diction in the Archbishop, the letters and extracts 
put in "On the Powers of the Archbishop" offer at the best, 
and merely by implication, negative evidence. The authorities 
from the Year-books do not seem to establish the point for which 
they are cited. The petition to Edward J II. and the reply refer 
entirely to criminal offences, and are now contrary 
to the laws of the realm. The case of Bishop 
Pecocke, a.d. 1457, requires to be considered by itself. It offers 
an example of the difficulties sometimes attending even written 
contemporary notices by competent persons. These notices, with 
such other documents as exist, and some later accounts have been 
examined by many scholars. Still it remains uncertain whether 
Pecocke was deprived, or, after appealing to the Pope, resigned on 
promise of a pension from the King.* Further, there is a double 
mode of procedure. After withdrawing from the King's Council 
at Westminster under pressure (which seems something like the 
waiving of privilege in Watson's case), Pecocke appeared at 
Lambeth, where the Archbishop sate with three Bishops described 
as assessors — Waynflete, Bishop of Winchester ; Chedworth, 
Bishop of Lincoln ; and Lowe, Bishop of Rochester; received the 
books which Pecocke submitted, and delivered them to twenty-four 
examiners ; received their report ; condemned six articles which 
were said to be extracted from the books ; caused the condemnation 
of these to be published at Paul's Cross, and subsequently received 
Pecocke's formal retractation. All this, which is not a mere 
reporting on the subject but is judicial, is combined with other 

* The evidence seems to shew that Pecocke was (i) deprived by the 
Archbishop, (2) reinstated by a Bull from the Pope, (3) induced to resign 
by threats of Royal influence being employed with his Holiness. — [Ed. C. I.] 

Pecocke is said by Whethamstede, " citari coram Archiepiscopo ; " 
and there " praesente tarn Domino Rege quam multis proceribus," 
proceedings in the King's Council at Westminster, where still 
the Archbishop gave him his choice between abjuration and death. 
Whethamstede's observation is that " reformavit (eum) Archi- 
praesularis auctoritas." This combination leaves the action of the 
jurisdictions which were employed to secure the 
^A^s^essors suppression of Pecocke ambiguous. It should be 

further observed that, this trial taking place in a.d. 
1457, the Archbishops of Canterbury had held five trials for heresy 
since the year 1410, sitting with Episcopal assessors. In two 
cases there were also assessors who were not Bishops (" Calendar 
of Trials for Heresy," ut sup.). And though in the instruments 
belonging to the "Process" (Gascoigne) by which Pecocke was 
tried, the Archbishop has the usual style of "Legatus," there is no 
token that anything was done by virtue of legatine power. Neither 
is there any allusion throughout the records to Convocation. 

Mr. Jeune has urged in evidence of the plea of 
^Parker"^ ^^^' ^he non-existence of the jurisdiction under considera- 
tion that Abp. Parker takes no notice of it in the 
account which he gives of the privileges and prerogative of the See 
of Canterbury in his " De Antiquitate Ecclesiae Britannicae " (p. 37, 
ed. Drake), whilst he gives a minute description of the Courts of 
Arches, Audience, and Prerogative in testamentary, matrimonial, and 
other causes, as well as of the Peculiar (p. 41) jurisdiction of the 
See. But here, in fact, lies the explanation. He gives an exact 
statement of the scope and practice, the officers, and the advocates 
of courts which were in daily request — " tam late patentis juris- 
dictionis," as he writes. There was no occasion for him to go into 
details upon a jurisdiction which, however real and necessary, had 
not been exercised for more than a century. But he does indicate 
clearly that there was a wider range of jurisdiction than he actually 
describes. He not only says that it was the business of the Arch- 
bishop " provincialia cuncta negotia arbitrio suo moderari et 
temperare " (p. 43) ; he goes much farther, and toofo,r. He writes 
(p. 37), " Archiepiscopi Cantuariensis authoritas non certis atque 
definitis archiepiscopalis aut metropoliticae jurisdictionis cancellis 
concludiiur, sed ordinaria, libera, paeneque arbitraria per suam 
provinciam excurrit et diffunditur." It is impossible to conclude 
that, when such is his language, Parker excluded suffragan juris- 


diction by mere silence when giving the particulars of his every-day 
courts, while he was at the same time revising the " Reformatio 
Legum." It is unreasonable to suppose that jurisdiction in the case 
of an accused suffragan was excluded from terms so large ; inas- 
much as otherwise, large as they are, the most important case of all 
would be unprovided for, since Convocation had never dealt with 
or been invoked in such a case. But the " Refor- 

Reformatio Legum. . -r >i i ^i j_ i 

matio Legum snows that where it was necessary 
to codify, Parker and his colleagues expressed themselves in plain 
terms. That code begun in 1549 was " carefully framed by Arch- 
bishop Cranmer " (Strype's Parker, ii. 62) and the committee which 
consisted of thirty-two most eminent Bishops, divines, civilians, and 
common lawyers. After abundant labour spent on it, " the whole 
code as revised and approved by Archbishop Parker,' who had been 
a member of the committee from first to last, ' w^s made public 
with the Archbishop's consent in (1571) the same year in Mdiich 
the Thirty-nine Articles were signed by Convocation and ratified by 
Parliament" (Cardwell, pref. to " R.L.," p. xi.). It is hardly 
necessary to remark that it is cited here simply in evidence, not as 
constitutional authority. Under title " De Ecclesia," &:c., c. 16, 
after provision for appeals to the Archbishop and for his adjudicating 
on questions between his comprovincials — " Judex et finitor inter 
eos esto archiepiscopus " — the article proceeds thus : — " Further he 
shall hear and judge accusations against the Bishops of his own 
province." "Ad hsec audiet et judicabit accusationes contra 
episcopos suae provinciae." A more definite direction cannot be 
conceived, nor a clearer testimony to the settled opinion of Parker 
at the very time when it is urged that the " De Antiquitate " 
showed he never thought of such a jurisdiction. The " Reformatio 
Legum" was published complete in 157 i, and the "De Antiquitate" 
in 1572. I should add that in title " De Deprivatione," c. 4 (" Card- 
well," p. 166), it is ordered that, if a Bishop is in peril of being 
deprived for any crime, the Archbishop with two Bishops named by 
the Crown are to take up the cognizance of the affair. But before we 
part from the evidence which Parker thus bears to the range and 
application of the jurisdiction it is desirable to notice how in his 
magnifying of the office one point which he wishes to make clear 
is that along with it the Metropolitical See had received the fullest 
possible rights of dispensation (" De Ant.," p. 37). The wording 
of the passage " totum illud legum rigorem mitigandi jus, quod 


dispensare dicitur" seems to show tli;it, in Parker's view, the duty 
of tolerance was the complement of power. A letter from Parker 
to Sir William Cecil of April 38, 1566 (" Correspond. Parker," L. 
ccxv. Par. Soc, p. 280), was alleged as showing the Archbishop's 
own sense that he had no jurisdiction as to suffragans. But read 
in its connection with the history, that letter is not concerned with 
jurisdiction,* but with the impossibility of enforcing obedience so 
long as the Queen was unwilling to give the help of her Council. 

Svich being the iurisdiction, there is therefore no 

Canons of 1604. _ ^ o j 

difficulty as to the canons of 1604. The ground 
taken by Sir W. Phillimore was, that affirming recent canons made 
from 1580 onwards, by which the Archbishop, first alone and then 
with an assessor, formed a tribunal, they created a new Court 
expressly for the suspension of Bishops. The argument was that 
this proves that previously the Archbishop's was not a Court capable 
of such act of suspension. But it was not the Court that was new, 
but the penalty. Previously it was part of the common law of the 
Church that a man should not be ordained without a title, unless 
the Bishop was prepared to maintain him ; nor without examination 
of his qualifications and character (see Phillimore, "^ Eccl. Law," p. 
120). But there had been no penalty under previous enactments, 
and the scandals are well known which were brought about through 
neglect of the rule. Accordingly the 33rd and 35th canons of 1604 
fix penalties, as the enactments of 1580, 1585, 1597 had done 
(though shortening the term in one case) in the form of suspension 
by the Archbishop from conferring holy orders. They give to the 
Archbishop (as the Court has to be named), according to apparently 
unbroken precedent, the benefit of assessorship, but only one 
assessor, since cases so simply proved required no more. In the 36th 
canon, where the question was mere matter of fact as to whether 
the candidate had subscribed the Three Articles, it is simply stated 
that the Bishop who had not required him to do so shall be sus- 
pended, without even naming the authority by whom. We must 
here observe that if Convocation, or the Archbishop in Convocation, 
had really been the proper and usual Court for the suspension of a 
Bishop, this could not have failed to be asserted in canons made by 

* [Nor did it relate to proceedings against Suffragan Bishops, but to the 
enforcement upon the "inferior" clergy by the " Spiritual " courts of the 
Royal Advertisements of 1566. See " Grindal's Remains," p. 289, and 
Parker Corr., pp. 276, 277. — Kd. C. /.] 


the Convocation itself. It is not necessary to examine the general 
language cited from authors, or from practice books, although they 
do not all point one way, because no opinions of the kind can affect 
the grounds which are before us as fully or more fully than before 
the writers. 

The great specific learning and ecclesiastical 

De Dominis. . r k • i t^ • • »ii-i r 

science ot Antonio de JJominis, Archbishop or 
Spalatro, and Dean of Windsor, even if of his numerous proofs all 
may not be equally valid, cannot be lightly set aside. His conclu- 
sion, after elaborate research and argument, is that the Metropolitan 
" ordinariam jam habere in episcopos suae provinciae potestatem,"' 
or otherwise that he is " ordinarius admonitor corrector et judex 
adversus suorum suffraganeorum vel negligentiam vel ex- 

The " ordinary power," which was supposed to have been dimi- 
nished by an Act of Charles I., was restored by the Act of 13 
Charles II., 12. 

When Archbishop Sheldon's letter in 1676 is 

Sheldon. . . ^ .... 

quoted with a view to show that in his judgment 
this particular judicial power did not reside in the Archbishop 
because he makes no mention of it, it can scarcely have been 
observed that neither does he mention the Court of his Vicar- 
General, nor the Court of Arches, nor the Court of Audience, nor 
yet that judicial power which it is argued that the Archbishop had 
in synod, Convocation, or other. If Archbishop Sheldon's silence 
as to the judicial power now under discussion means that it did 
not exist, then neither did any of the others exist, not even the 
power in Convocation which is contended for in the protest. Why 
he omits the formal mention by name of these judicial functions I 
do not know (perhaps because of the detail necessary to discrimi- 
nate them), but it is observable that he does say very distinctly that 
the Archbishop " episcoporum in regimine episcopali errata et 
negligentias corrigit." This cannot have been done without some 
kind of Court, not propria motu, or arbitrarily. And Sheldon is not 
speaking of the visitatorial power throughout the province. He 
deals with that some lines lower down. 

The case of Bishop Wood of Lichfield (1684) 

p. 00 s case, ^^jj^ ^^^^ little. It was an arrangement. Two suits 

about dilapidations (in one of which he was plaintiff, in the other 

the Archbishop's office was promoted against him), and a third. 


brought against him for non-residence, were, by consent, referred 
to the arbitration of two Bishops. The arbitration was allowed, 
and the award confirmed by the Court of Arches, and the sentence, 
part of which was suspension, was formally pronounced by the 
Archbishop in Lambeth Chapel, a Bishop of the Province and 
another Bishop friot the arlitratorsj being present. 

In two other cases the learned counsel argued that the resort 
to special commissions by Royal authority showed that trial 
before the Archbishop was not recognized as a possible course — 

the cases of Bishop Compton and of Bishop Hacket. 
^and hS?" With regard to Bishop Compton's case (1686) it is 

obvious that James II., intending him to be not 
only tried but condemned, had no other resource than an eccle- 
siastical commission. It was hopeless to expect that Archbishop 
Sancroft would himself execute the King's purpose. There was 
this further gain in a commission — that, in the absence of the 
Archbishop, it would be presided over (as was the case) by Lord 
Chancellor Jeffries. In the case of Bishop Hacket, of Down and 
Connor (1693) we need not resort to the fact that the Bill of Rights 
did not then run in Ireland in order to explain why it was heard 
by a commission from the Crown, and not by the Archbishop. 
The Archbishop, Primate Boyle of Armagh, was incapacitated 
from the performance of public functions. He had taken no part 
for ten years past even in consecrating bishops for his own pro- 
vince, though six consecrations took place between 1683, when he 
officiated for the last time (see " Records of Consecration of Irish 
Bishops," supplement to Irish Ecclesiastical Gazette, 1866), and 
1702, when he died, at the age of 93, "his memory gone, deaf, 
and almost blind, a mere wreck of the past" (Abbey, " Eng. 
Church," vol. ii., p. 315). 

Up to this point, then, no precedent has been found to show 
that, either by canon, statute, or usage. Convocation or any synod 
in the realm has exclusive jurisdiction ousting the jurisdiction of 
the Archbishop to try a Bishop of his province. On the other 
hand, frequent indications and mention, and examples, both 
indirect and direct, of the exercise from time to time of the Arch- 
bishop's jurisdiction are found continuously from the earliest times. 

And when the issue definitely appeared in the case 

I. iicy T'. Watson. 

"Lucy V. Bishop of St. David's, " the validity of the 


jurisdiction was distinctly affirmed, and has been accepted ever 
since. The suit was promoted ex officio before the Archbishop, 
who held his Court in Lambeth Palace, with his Vicar-General, 
assisted on each occasion by several of the five Bishops who were 
his assessors. Upon proof being offered, and several witnesses 
examined on each side, the Bishop tendered a protest on the 
suggestion that matters contained in the articles were of temporal 
character. The Archbishop overruled the protest. The Bishop 
appealed to the Court of Delegates. The appeal when it came 
on was heard by five peers, five bishops, five common law Judges, 
the Judge of the Admiralty Court, and four other doctors. They 
dismissed the appeal. But pending the appeal the Bishop moved 
for a prohibition, and Sir B. Shower argued for it, 

"That it does not appear that the Bishop of St. David's was cited 
to appear in any Court whereof the law takes notice, for the citation 
is that he should appear before the Archbishop of Canterbury, or his 
Vicar- General, in the hall of Lambeth-house, which is not any Court 
whereof the law takes notice. For the Archbishop has the same 
power over his suffragan Bishops as every Bishop has over the clergy 
of his diocese, but no Bishop can cite the clergy before himself, but in 
his Court, and therefore the citation ought to have been in the Arches, 
or in some other court of the Archbishop." (i Raym., 447.) 

The argument may in form not be the same, but in substance is 
identical with the first ground of protest on behalf of the Lord 
Bishop of Lincoln. No doubt other grounds were shown in the 
St. David's case, but the prohibition was denied on all, except one 
article as to the abuse of a charity. The whole Court held that 
" the citation was good," and " that as to that which relates to the 
office of a Bishop, the spiritual Court may proceed against him to 
deprive him." Against sentence of deprivation the Bishop appealed 
a second time to King's Bench for a prohibition ; to the Lords for 
leave to resume his privilege ; and a second time to the Delegates. 
The King's Bench, in refusing the prohibition, declared itself with 
reference to the case "fully satisfied that the Archbishop had 
jurisdiction," that "by the common law he hath Metropolitical 
jurisdiction," and hath "power to deprive." The Bishop brought 
a writ of error before the House of Lords on the refusal of the 
prohibition by King's Bench. It was not received. In the 
House of Lords, counsel for both sides and the Attorney-General 


for the Crown were ordered to he beard before the Judges. 
The question of jurisdiction was fully argued, and the ten 
Judges were unanimous for it. The Lords did not pronounce on 
that specific point, but refused leave to resume privilege. The 
Delegates (an equally strong Court as before, indeed, almost the 
same) were unanimousl)^ of opinion (Rothery) that the Archbishop 
had jurisdiction, confirmed the decree of the Archbishop, and 
remitted the cause to him. After that Bishop Watson retained 
lands of the See, and the Palace. Two informations of intrusion 
were exhibited before the Court of Exchequer, which turned 
on the lawfulness of deprivation. Judgment was given against 
him on both. On the former he appealed to the Exchequer 
Chamber, and judgment was confirmed ; on the second to the 
House of Lords, but did not proceed with his writ of error. Thus 
by the Delegates twice, in the King's Bench twice, in the Court of 
Exchequer twice, by the Exchequer Chamber, and by the House 
of Lords twice, judgments were given ^vhich in some instances 
directly, and in others by necessary implication, bore witness to 
the Metropolitan jurisdiction now questioned. A consensus of 
jurisdictions affirmed and reaffirmed it. The case of " Lucy and 
the Bp. of St. David's" is referred to in Ayliffe's " Parergon," 
p. 92; Rogers's " Eccl. Law," p. 107; Stephens's "Law of the 
Clergy," 907; Phillimore, "Eccl. Law," 1135, 1339; Cripps's 
" Law of the Church," 97 ; and by Lord Denman in the Dean of 
York's case, 3 Q. B. R. No doubt is thrown on the decisions by 
any of these authorities. 

Two new objections are, however, now raised to the authority 
of the St. David's case as a precedent. The one is personal to 
Lord Chief Justice Holt, and need not be considered. The other 
is that the absolute appearance to the citation in the first instance 
was a bar to the Bishop's raising the question of jurisdiction 
subsequently. The Bishop of St. David's and his advisers were 
not likely to miss this point if it could have been taken before the 
Archbishop with any reasonable hope of success. Sir B. Shower 
would not have argued the question of jurisdiction if he had 
thought that the Bishop's absolute appearance in the Ecclesiastical 
Court made such contention useless in moving for the prohibition. 
j\Ir. Lucy's counsel would simply have answered Sir B. Shower 
that the objection was taken too late. The distinction stated by 
Dr. Tristram is on principle sound. Where the matter is one of 
form, appearance will waive the objection ; but where the matter is 
one of substance, such as jurisdiction in criminal suits, the objection 
may be taken at any time. " Prohibition may be granted at any 
time to restrain a Court to intermeddle with, or execute, a thing 
which bylaw they ought not to hold plea of. . . And the King's 
Court. . . may lawfully prohibit. . . as well after judgment and 
execution as before." (Answer of the Judges, " Articuli Cleri. 


Coke 2d Instit.," p. 602.) " Where it appears that the matter 
was not within the jurisdiction of the spiritual court, a prohibition 
hes after sentence, or before." Comyns's "Dig. Tit. Prohibition," 
D. And, same Title, F, "where the Court has no jurisdiction a 
prohibition may be granted upon the request of a stranger, as 
well as the defendant himself." Compare "Taylor v. Morley " 
(i " Curteis," p. 481); "Roberts v. Hamby " (3 " Meeson and 
Welsby," p. 130). Further, the St. David's case is an authority 
for holding that the Archbishop's right to cite a suffragan of the, 
province is not interfered with by the " Statute of Citations," 
23 Hen. VIII., c. 9. And therefore it is convenient here to 
remark on what was said (on one of these later cases) touching 
that statute. That Act was for the protection of persons resident 
within and subject to the jurisdiction of the Ordinary. And while 
it provided that persons should not be liable to be cited out of the 
diocese in which they reside, it makes exceptions in the case where 
the offence is committed " by the Bishop ... or other person 
having spiritual jurisdiction ... or by any other person within the 
diocese or other jurisdiction whereunto he shall be cited." The 
Bishop may be cited out of his diocese. Accordingly, among all 
the objections raised in the St. David's case, the Statute of Citations 
was not alleged. 

In the contemporary case of Bishop Jones of St. 
^' ' Asaph the steps were these. A complaint from 

the clergy of the diocese ; a metropolitical visitation by com- 
missioners to collect evidence ; " a process against the Bishop to 
appear and answer certain articles " ; allegations by the Bishop in 
vindication ; a formal hearing appointed by the Archbishop, June 5th, 
1700 ; suspension decreed, June, 1701, "for six months et ultra 
donee idonie (sic) satisjecerit in premissis, et aliter a nobis 
vel successorilus nostris ordinatum fuerit." His " purgation " 
was not satisfactory, and the sentence was continued for 
six months more.* No objection was taken at law to the juris- 
diction or its exercise. (See " Narrative, &c., Lambeth Library," 
113 K. 17.) Several other recent cases were cited in the argument 

* This fact deserves to be noted for many reasons. It illustrates the 
meaning of making "satisfaction" to the Court; for in Bp. Jones' case 
his sentence of suspension was for six months (from June i8th, 1701) " and 
further till the Lord Bishop shall have suitably made satisfaction in the 
premisses, and otherwise been ordered by us or our successors." At the 
end of the six months, Bp. Jones appeared with six compurgators, but 
tendered an unsatisfactory apology, so that the sentence was continued till 
May 5th, 1702, the profits being further sequestrated. The " satisfaction " 
exacted by the Court was the following Confession in writing read and 
subscribed by Jones: — "I, Edmund, Bp. of St. Asaph, do here in the 
presence of Almighty God in this Court, and before the Most Reverend His 
Grace the Lord Abp. of Canterbury, my Metropolitan and judge, humbly 

confess " {_viz. the offences charged]. " And whereas my absolution 

from the sentence of suspension hath been retarded, by reason that I the said 


besides " Lucy and St. David's," for instance, the Dean of York's 
case (in which, as it happened, prohibition was granted aftt-r sen- 
tence), 2 Q,. B. R. ; " Long v. Bp. of Cape Town " (i '" Moore" 
P.C.C, N.S., p. 46) ; " In re Bp. of Natal " (3 "Moore " P.C.C, 
N.S., p. 115); " Regina v. Abp. of Canterbury" ( 1 1 Gl. B. R.) ; 
Sharpe's case (11 "State Trials"); "Porter v. Rochester" (XIIL 
"Coke"). In the Natal case it was laid down 
p. oenso. ^j^^j. ^^ coercive legal jurisdiction in cases of heresy 

was transferred to the Metropolitan of Cape Town over his suffragan 
bishops either by law or consensually. But neither this nor any of 
these cases, in the opinion of the Court, show that the Archbishop 
of Canterbury has not the jurisdiction as settled in the St. David's 
„ , f, u case. Further, recent authority has confirmed the 

Bp. of C logher. i i , ,- , • -^ , ti ■ 

law as cleared and defined in that case, ay the 
advice of the law officers of the Crown, Sir Christopher Robinson, 
Sir Robert Gifford (afterwards Lord Gilford), and Sir John Copley 

Bp. of St. .\saph had declared that I had acted in my diocese pursuant 
to my example, or by the directions of my predecessor, or to that effect " 
Jones therefore apologises unreservedly, and prays absolution. " Short 
Narrative of the Proceedings against the Bp. of St. Asaph." (Brit. 
Museum. 517. g. 39, & Lambeth 104. D. 14.) In the absolution itself, 
dated May i6th, 1702, under " the seal of our Vicar-General," it was 
recited that Jones had " made suitable satisfaction to Us, as from the Acts 
had and done in this business in that behalf is more fully manifest and 
apparent." — Tenison's Register, p. 175. 

It was suggested by Counsel for the Bp. of Lincoln that the light sentence 
on " confession " of I3p. Jones, who was an Anti-Jacobite (a confession, be 
it observed, made ou\y after the expiration of his original term of sentence), 
might have induced Bp. Watson in 1699 to waive his right to object to the 
Abp.'s jurisdiction. But seeing that the articles against Jones were not 
exhibited till June 14th, 1698, while Watson's citation issued on Aug. 23rd, 
1695, this contention was scarcely plausible. It may be added that 
Hough Bp. of Coventry, and Compton Bp. of London, sat with the Abp. 
as his assessors in Jones' case, but are not regarded in the proceedings as 

The above /j^i/Vw^ confession of Bp. Jones throws light upon the meaning 
of the similar confession made by Bp. Pecocke, which may be read in 
Foxe (A. and M. iii-733), and was thus described, at the time, in the Report 
of the Royal Commissioners to the King. 

" Over this, for as much as hit is now openly and notoriously knowen, 
as wel by the judicial and irrevocable confession of ye saide Reynolde Pecok 
by him made in judgment, and also by his solemn revocation late done in the 
sight of the people at Paul's cross at London, as by the decree, and sentence 
declaratoir late given at Lambeth by the Rt. Rev. Father in God the Abp. 
of Canterbury," &c. — [Wharton MS., Lambeth Library, No. 577, p. 28.] 

According to another Lambeth MS. (No. 594, p. 22) Pecocke in his 
recantation at St. Paul's Cross, publicly referred to this, saying, " I have 
before this time, before the Most Reverend Father in God, my Lord of 
Canterbury, in due and lawful form judicially abjured." The Bishops who 
sat on that occasion with Abp. Bourchier were not the same " assessors " 
who presided on November nth, 1457, at Lambeth. 

Pecocke (like other Bishops) is customarily described in the contemporary 
official documents as "Minister of the See" of Chichester. — [Ed. C. I.] 


(afterwards Lord Lyndhurst), that case was acted upon, and pro- 
ceedings instituted before the ]\Ietropolitan against the Bishop of 
Clogher in 1822. (Phillimore, " Eccl. Law," p. 92.) The court 
does not enter upon the question of the Vicar-General of the Pro- 
vince of Canterbury correctly acting as Judge instead of the Arch- 
bishop of Canterbury because it does not practically affect the 
present case. The court has now examined in detail the facts and 
reasonings which have been submitted to it as ecclesiastical grounds 
against the validity of its jurisdiction. It desires to express its 
obligations to the learned counsel on both sides for the learning and 
lucidity with which they have illustrated the subject and fortified 
their several contentions. 

The court finds that from the most ancient times 
Result of Inquiry, gf ^he Church the Arcliicpiscopal jurisdiction in the 
case of suffragans has existed 5 that in the Church of 
England it has been from time to time continuously exercised in 
various forms ; that nothing has occurred in the Church to modify 
that jurisdiction; and that, even if such jurisdiction could be used 
in Convocation for the trial of a bishop, consistently with the ancient 
principle that in a synod bishops only could hear such a cause, it 
nevertheless remains clear that the Metropolitan has regularly 
exercised that jurisdiction both alone and with assessors. The 
cases came all under one jurisdiction, but in many forms: — In. 
Synods, episcopal, clerical, or mixed ; in Council ; in the Upper 
House of Convocation ; with both Houses ; in the Court of Arches ; 
in the Court of Audience (some hold) j through the Vicar-General j 
through arbitrators ; with one assessor, with three or four or five 
assessors, alone absque conseJisit cujusUhet Episcopi, but always, 
except for some impediment, Personally — ob rcvcrcut'iam Officii and 
ob revereiitiam Fratris. Nor is it strange that while the jurisdiction 
is one, forms should be many and cases few. The question now 
before us is touching the action of the Archbishop, sitting together 
with comprovincial assessors. There is no form of the exercise of 
the jurisdiction in this country which has been more examined into 
and is better attested and confirmed. 

III. Conclusion. 

The Court, therefore, although by an entirely different line 
of inquiry, has arrived at the same conclusion which was arrived at 
on purely legal principles by the unanimous Judgment of the Lord 
High Chancellor with four Judges and five Bishops who constituted 
the Judi( ial Committee of ''he Privy Council to advise Her Majesty 
in August, 1888. 

The Court decides that it has jurisdiction in this case, and there- 
fore overrules the protest. 

To be obtained at tlie Oltice of tlic C1iui-l-Ii Associatum, 14, Buckingliaiii Street, Strand, 

London. Hy Subscribers, for distribution, free. By otliers at 2(? eacli or Vl^- per 100. 
5th Thousand.] 






{Lord Chief justice of England), 





Allcroft and Others v. Dean and Chapter of St. Paul's. 

In the Queen's Bench on June ist, 1889. 

No. CV.] 

Honlton : 

J. F. SHAW & Co., 48, Paternoster Row. 
J. KEN SIT. 18, Paternoster Row. 

fiKBmeil ©I tie OM®i'i liiil 





^AEr. Justice Manisty. — This is an application by four inhabitants 
of tlie diocese of Loudon, vritliin which the Cathedral Church of St. 
Paul is situate, two being justices of the peace for the County of 
Middlesex, one being a lieutenant-general in Her Majesty's Army, and 
the fourth being a barrister-at-law, and all of them being members of 
the Church of England as by law established, for a writ of mandamus 
commanding the Bishop to transmit a copy of a representation duly 
made to him by them pursuant to the provisions of the Public Worshi]» 
Pegulation Act, 1874, to the persons complained of — namely, the Dean 
and Chapter of the Cathedral Cliurch of St. Paul — and to proceed 
thereon further in accordance with the said Act. In the alternative, 
the applicants ask that the Bishop may be commanded to proceed to 
consider tlie whole circumstances of the case affecting such represen- 
tation, without considering any other circumstance, or taking into 
consideration reasons other than the circumstances of the case. I 
propose to deal with the first head of the application only. The 
representation stated that the Dean and Chapter of the Cathedral 
Church of St. Paul had within five years before the date thereof — 
namely, in January, 1888 — introduced into the said church and set up 
upon the altar-piece or reredos therein an image or sculptured subject, 
&c. (The learned Judge read the representation.) I doubt whether 
the limitation of five years applies to the present case. See subsection 
1 of section 1 and the proviso at the end of section 1, which applies 
only to an alteration in, or addition to the fabric of the church, and 
not to a ' decoration ' forbidden b}' law. The point does not arise in the 
present case, as this representation was made within five j-ears; but 
it may arise in another case if a siicceeding Bishop, after the expira- 
tion of five years, should entertain a different opinion to that of hi.s 
predecessor; and upon a representation being made to liim should send 
it on to the Archbishop in order that the case should be tried. Each 

of the applicants made and sent to tlie Bishop a statutory declaration 
•of tlie truth of the statements contained in the representation, as 
required by the eighth section of the Act of 1874. The Bishop, on 
the 23rd of May, 1888, made a statement m writing, and deposited it 
in the registry of the diocese, and transmitted a copy to the present 
applicants and to the persons complained of, as required by the ninth 
:section of the Act. (The learned Judge here read it.) The applicants 
'Contend that the Bishop had no power without the consent of the 
parties to decide (as lie has done) that the crucifix or sculptured image 
of our Saviour on the cross, whicli is in question, is legal, and that he 
ought to be compelled, in accordance with the ninth section of the Act 
of 1874, to transmit a copy of the representation to the persons com- 
plained of, and to require them, and also the persons making the 
representation, to state in writing within twenty-one dajn whether 
they are willing to submit to his directions toucliing the matter of the 
representation without appeal, and that if they do so the duty of the 
Bishop is forthwith to hear and decide the matter ; but if the parties do 
not so submit, then that the Bishop is under the circumstances bound to 
transmit the representation to the Archbishop of Canterbury, who is 
forthwith to require the Judge of the Provincial Courts of Canterbury 
and York to hear the matter of the representation. The judgment of 
that Judge is by section 9 of the Act subject to appeal to the Queen in 
'Council. The Dean and Chapter contend that it was in the absolute dis- 
cretion of the Bishop, without the consent of the parties and without even 
hearing them, to decide as he did, and to stop further proceedings on the 
representation. The question raised by the representation, and which 
the applicants seek to have finally determined by appeal, if necessary, to 
Her Majestj- in Council, is whether the introduction into this reredos 
•of a crucifix — that is to say, of an image or sculptured subject, 5 ft. 
in height or thereabouts, representing our Lord upon tlie cross — in 
a conspicuous position immediately above the Communion table, is 
forbidden by law. The Bishop in his statement says that having 
1. considered the whole circumstances attending the representation, he 
is of opinion proceedings should not be taken upon it, for the 
Treason that the main question of principle raised by the representation 
has been already decided in the Exeter case — " Phillpotts v. Boyd " 
(L.E. (3, Privy Council cases, 435) — decided in February, 1875. In 
that case a reredos was held to be legal which showed the figure of 
our Lord in the act of ascending into heaven in a conspicuous place 
immediately above the Commimion table, and that consequently 
further litigation in the present case was inexpedient. In tlie 
course of his statement the Bishop does not say the erection in the 
two cases is similar or the same ; on the contrary, what he says is, " it 
is impossible to say the difference between the two is of very grave 
importance, or that the one offers serious temptation to idolatry and 
the other does not." His Lordship does not say that the difference is 
not of grave, or any, importance, but only that it is not of " very 
grave " importance. Again, he does not say tliat the crucifix in the 
present case does not offer temptation to idolatry, but only that it 
does not offer " serious " temptation. I venture very respectfully 
to differ from the Lord Bishop as to the similarity of the two cases, 
and as to the effect of the judgment in the Exeter case which was 
commenced in 1873, consequently before the passing of the Act of 
1874. Two years after that judgment was pronounced — namely, in 

May, 1877— the case of "Rldsdale v. Clifton" (L.K. 2. Prob. D., 276) 
came before a committee of tlie Privy Council consisting of the Lord 
Chancellor Cairns and Lord Selborne and eight other eminent 
members, the Archbisliop of Canterbuiy and four other Bishops 
attending as episcopal assessors. One of the questions was 
whether the placing and retaining the crucifix on the top of 
the screen separating i\vv chancel of the church from the body 
or nave was illegal. The judgment will be found at p. ;319, 
to the effect tliat the crucifix in question in tliat case was 
contrary to law. Tlie learned Judge read from the judgment as to 
tlie di-stinction between crucifixes and crosses.) In tlie following 
month of June, 1877, the Denbigh case, as it has been called, wliich 
is reported by the name of "Hughes v. Ediuards" (L.E. 2, Pi'ob. 
Div., 361), came before the Court of Arches, and Lord Penzance as 
Dean of the Arches decided that a reredos, of which the central 
compartment consisted of a sculptured panel repi-cscnting the cruci- 
fixion and having the figure of our Saviour on the cross, 2 ft. 8 in. 
high, was not illegal; but in giving judgment he says (at p. 370), 
"I do not conceal from myself that this question is one upon which 
there is room for much difference of opinion." This case, though not 
referred to by the Bishop in his statement, is, as an authority, stronger 
than the Exeter case in favour of the legality of the crucifix, or 
sculptured image of our Saviour on the cross, in the present case; 
but the facts are not the same, and one of the objects of the present 
applicants is to have that case reviewed if necessary, and to have 
it decided finally by Her Majesty in Council whether tlie crucifix 
in question is or is not contrary to law. The question we liave to 
decide is not whether the crucifix is legal or illegal, but whether, the 
Bishop of London having decided the question of law raised by the 
I'cpresentation, and given his opinion that proceedings ought not to be 
taken upon the representation for a reason which, as it seems to me, 
is erroneous and bad in point of law, his Lordship ought to be com- 
pelled by means of the high prerogative writ of mandamua to allow 
the proceedings to be continued as provided by the 9th section of the 
Act of 1874. The answer to this question seems to me to dejiend 
upon the true construction of the Public Worship Act, 1874. (The 
learned Judge read the preamble, and sections 8 and 9.) I think the 
context shows that " the whole circumstances of the case " which the 
Bishop is to consider, do not include the consideration and decision of 
an undecided question of law raised by the representation. By 
undecided, I mean not decided by the final Court of Appeal. His 
duty in such a case, as it seems to me. is to entertain the representation 
and follow the course prescribed by the Act for further proceedings. 
If the qiiestion had been decided by the final Court of Appeal it may 
be the Bishop would have been justified in stating that fact as his 
reason for being of opinion that proceedings should not be taken on 
the representation; but it seems to me to be incredible that the 
Legislature intended to give every bishop absolute power without the 
consent of the jxirties, or even hearing them, to decide a question of 
law wliich has not been decided by the final Court of Appeal, and 
stop the proceedings absolutely. If this be the law, it follows that 
«very Bishop may, for the time being, and, in my opinion, for that 
only, permit any image, hotoever illegal, to be introduced into every 
church in his diocese. It is suggested tliat if the Bishop has such 


power otliei" proceedings may be taken by wliicli the decision of 
the ultimate Court of Appeal can be obtained. I am by no means 
sure that such is the case — see " Sheppard v. Bennett " ( 2, 
Ecclesiastical cases, 335-343) — but if it be, it seems to me to 
afford a strong argument in favour of the contention that 
the Legislature did not intend to give the Bishop the power 
to prevent an appeal upon a question of law raised by a repre- 
sentation under the Act of 1874, which is intituled, " An Act for the 
better administration of the laws respecting the regulation of public 
worship." It may be difficult to define what cases are within the 
jurisdiction of the Bishop — that is to say, within the words, " Unless 
the Bishop shall be of opinion, after considering the whole circum- 
stances of the case, that proceedings should not be taken on the- 
representation," but I think those words may be satisfied by confining 
them to minor matters, such as the applicants not being duly qualified 
to make a representation, or the proceedings being frivolous and 
vexatious, which the Bishop does not suggest as the reason for his 
opinion. I also think that the fact of the Bishop being required to- 
state in writing the reason for his opinion, and the provisions as to the 
course to be pursued, not only in case the parties consent to submit to- 
las directions, but also in case of their not consenting, show clearly 
that it never was intended to give the bishop the unlimited and 
absolute power now contended for. In construing an Act of Parlia- 
ment the intention of the Legislature is the point to be ascertained, 
and it must be collected from the whole of the pi'ovisions in the 
statute which bear upon the question. A thing which is within tke 
letter of a statute is not within the statute unless it be within the 
intent of the Legislature — Bac. Abs. Title Statute I., 5; " Bridqer v. 
Richardson " (2 M. and S., 568) ; " Simpson v. Unwin " (3 B. and Ad., 
124). I place great reliance upon the proviso in section 9 that no' 
judgment pronounced by the Bishop after the parties have submitted 
to his directions without appeal shall be considered as finally deciding 
any question of law, so that it may not be again raised by other 
jmrties. This proviso, by necessary implication, gives other parties 
who do not submit to the Bishop's directions power to make a repre- 
sentation and raise the same question, and the right to have it tried 
by the Judge with power of appeal to the Queen in Council, thus 
showing, as it seems to me conclusively, that it never was intended to 
give the bishop power finally to decide a question of law, such as is 
raised in the present case, even as between the immediate parties, 
without their consent and without even hearing them. If this be not 
so, this absurd consequence follows — that if other parties, by a 
representation, raise the same question, and do not submit to the 
Bishop's direction the Bishop may, nevertheless, stop the proceedings 
in limine, as he has done in the present case, thus rendering the 
proviso of no effect. I also place considerable reliance upon the Mords 
requiring the Bishop to state in writing the reason for his opinion that 
proceedings should not be taken upon the representation, in the event of 
his being of that opinion. It cannot, I should think, be successfully 
contended that these words were inserted without an object, and that 
they are immaterial. The only suggestion made by the Attornej''- 
Geueral was that probably these words were introduced in order to 
insure expedition ; but they have no such effect, and exjiedition is 
provided for by other words. It seems to me that probably they were 

inserted for the purpose of preventing the Bishop exceeding his 
powers, and to enable tlie ]Kn'sons making the representation to get 
redress if he did exceed tlioni. If the view I take of the intention of 
the Legishiture be correct, then, in my opinion, it follows that the 
mandamus which is asked for should be issued. It is a high preroga- 
tive writ invented for the purpose of supplying defects of justice, and 
by Magna Charia the Crown is bound neither to deny justice to any- 
one, nor to delay anybody in obtaining justice. Allusion was made in 
the argument by the leai-ned counsel for the Dean and Chapter to the 
case of " The Queen v. the Lord Bishop of Oxford " (4 Q. B. Div., 245 
and 525), reported under the name of "Julius v. the Lord Bishop of 
Oxford" (5 Appeal Cases, H. L., 214). That was a case under the 
Church Discipline Act, 1840 (3 and 4 Vic, ch. 86), which was an Act 
to amend the manner of proceedings in causes for the correction of 
flei-ks in holy orders of the United Church of England and Ireland. 
It will readily be seen by a perusal of the Act and the judgments that 
the case is wholly different from the present. In conclusion, I will 
venture to add that for the sake of all parties the sooner the question 
raised by this representation is finally decided the better. The 
Bishop, in his statement, says litigation keejis up irritation and party 
^strife, it embitters men's feelings, it inflicts much mischief in the 
Church and in true religion. It is for those very reasons that I think 
the sooner litigation upon this vexed question of the legality of intro- 
ducing crucifixes, such as the present, into churches is set at rest by 
the Court of final appeal the better it will be for the Church and all 
l)arties concerned. I should think no one is sanguine enough to 
suppose that the decision of the Bishop in the present case will finally 
settle the question. I am of opinion that the writ oimandamus should 
be issued in the form first asked for by the applicants, and I would 
very respectfully ask the Bishop to consider the observations I liave 
made before he decides ■\\hether he will obey the writ and so send the 
•case for trial, or whether he will appeal against it, and so continue 
litigation for an indefinite length of time. 

Mr. Baron Pollock then read a judgment to the contrary effect — 
that the mandamus ought not to be granted. He said, — An order nisi 
was gi'anted in this case, calling upon the Bishop of London to show 
caiise why a writ of mandamus should not issue directing him to 
transmit a copy of the representation of John Derby Allcroft and three 
other complainants, dated May 4, 1888, to the persons complained of 
— namel3% the Dean and Chapter of St. Paul's — and proceed there- 
on further in accordance with the Public Worship Begulation Act, 
1874. The C[uestion now for our decision is whether that order ought 
to be made absolute. The matter arises out of a proceeding under 
the Public Worship Eegulation Act, 1874, whereby the prosecutors, 
lieing persons duly entitled to proceed under that Act, transmitted to 
the Bishop of London a representation which stated in substance that 
the Dean and Chapter of St. Paid's had within five years introduced, 
*fec. (Tlie learned Judge read it.) In answer to this representation 
the Bislu)]) of Loudon sent the following reply (reading it). It is said 
by the complainants that the reasons set forth by the Bishop in this 
answer are insulEcieut, and so clearly insuilicient tliat this Court 
ought lo treat them as a nullity, and to require the Bishop to transmit 
iincl proceed with their representation as if he had stated no reasons at 
all. The decision of this question turns mainly upon tlie proper cou- 


strnction to be given to section 9 of the Pulilic Worship Ecgulation 
Act. 1871-. Section 8 of that Act provides that if a certain class of 
persons (including such persons as the complainants) shall be of 
opinion " that in such church any alteration in or addition to the 
fabric, ornaments, or furniture thereof has been made witJiout lawful 
authority, or that any decoration forbidden by law has been intro- 
duced into such church," they may represent the same to the Bishop 
in a form given by the Act. By section 9, subject to an exception 
■v^hich I will notice more fully presently, it is provided that tlie 
Bishop '• shall within twenty-one days after receiving the representa- 
tion transmit a co]iy thereof to the person comi^hiined of, and 
shall require such person, and also the person making the representa- 
tion, to state in writing, within twenty-one days, whether tliej are 
willing to submit to the directions of the Bishop without appeal, and 
if they shall state their willingness to submit to the directions of the 
Bishop without appeal, the Bishop shall forthwith proceed to hear 
the matter of the representation in such manner as he shall think fit, 
and shall pronounce such judgment and issue sucli monition (if au}'^) 
as he may think proper, and no appeal shall lie from such judgment 
or monition. Provided that no judgment so pronounced by the 13ishop 
shall be considered as finally cleciding any question of law, so that it 
may not be again raised by other parties." The section further 
enacts that — " If the person making tlie representation and the 
person complained of sliall not, within the time aforesaid, state their 
willingness to submit to the directions of the Bishop, the Bishop shall 
forthwith transmit the rej)resentation in the mode prescribed by the 
rules and orders to the Archbishop of the province, and the 
Archbishop shall fortliwitli require the Judge to hear the matter 
of the representation at any place within the diocese or province, 
or in London or Westminster." Had this been the whole of the 
section, there can be no doubt that the words being "the Bishop shall 
transmit" would make it imperative upon him to forward a copy of 
the representation wholly irrespective of his own opinion, and it seems 
therefore T.mnecessarj'^ to enter ujion the consideration of tlie many 
cases in wliich this Court has been called upon to decide upon such 
words as "may," "might," "it shall be lawful," and, so far as this 
part of the case is concerned, it seems that little can be gained from 
the decision of the Court of Appeal and of the House of Lords in the 
case of " Julius v. the Bishop of Oxford " (4 Q. B. D., 245, 525 ; 5 App. 
Cas.. 214). The section, however, begins with these important 
words : — " Unless the Bisho]) shall be of opinion, after considering the 
whole circumstances of the case, that proceedings shoidd not be taken 
on the representation (in which case he shall state in writing the 
reason for his opinion, and such statement .shall be dejjosited in the 
registry of the diocese, and a copy thereof shall forthwith be trans- 
mitted to the person or some one of the persons who sluill have made 
the representation, and to the person complained of), he sliall, within 
twenty-one daj's after receiving the representation, transmit a copy 
thereof to the person comjilained of." It is clear from this provision 
that the Bishop is bound to consider the whole circumstances of the 
case, and from those circumstances to form an opinion whether pro- 
ceedings should, or should not, be taken on tlie representation ; and 
that he would be as much guilty of a dereliction of duty if he declined 
or omitted to do so, as he would be if he declined, or omitted, to 

transmit the representation. Every word contained in this exception 
is of importance. That there is a discretion vested in tlie Bishop, and 
tliat it nmst be properly exercised, is bej^ond dispute. The object 
Tvliich he is directed to attain is to decide whether proccedinj^s should 
not be taken on the representation ; but before arriving at that object 
he must form an opinion, and that opinion must be based upon a con- 
sideration of the whole circumstances of the case. Tliere can, 
tlierefore, be no doubt that the Bishop is bound, in the first place, to 
form his opinion upon considerations that arise within the scope of the 
Act of Parliament. If he were to saj^ that in his opinion the adjudi- 
cation upon any representation was an evil, and therefore that 
proceedings should not be taken upon the particular representation 
transmitted to him, his decision would be nugatory, and this Court 
ouglit to treat it as such. Again, if it could be shown that the Bishop 
had not considered the whole circumstances of the case within the 
statute, but that he had based his opinion upon a portion of those 
circumstances only, to the exclusion of others that were material, I 
should come to the same conclusion. This part of the case was pre- 
sented with logical accuracy by the arguments of the learned counsel 
who appeared for the complainants. Their joint effect may be 
stated as follows: — "We do not ask the Court,' they said, 'to 
review the Bishop's reasons ; but those reasons must be within the area 
created hy the statute, He must consider the whole circumstances 
of the case. To omit one circumstance may be as bad as omitting all. 
So, to add a circumstance not within the proper area may be equally 
mischievous; for, if he has included this within his reasons, he has 
not reasoned merely about the whole circumstances, but about these 
and something else. Further, the Bishop is bound to show by his 
written opinion that he has considered the whole circumstances, and 
that his opinion Hows from them." I accept and approve of the 
whole of this proposition ; but in giving effect to it it must be borne 
in mind that tlie statute does not in any way set forth what are the 
reasons by which the Bishop is to be guided in forming his opinion. 
These must be gathered from the whole circumstances of the case, 
and by applying them to such considei'ations as properly assist the 
mind in coming to the required conclusion. In some cases circum- 
stances beyond those which arise out of the particular subject of the 
representation — such as the character of the chvirch or of the con- 
gregation ; the period of tinie during which the images objected to 
have been erected; the opinion and conduct which their erection may 
have elicited from those who are in the habit of attending Divine' 
worship at the particular church — ought to be considered before the 
opinion is formed. In other cases the mere form and character of 
the images themselves may suffice ; but in all cases such general 
considerations as properly bear upon the determination of the question 
which it is the Bishop's duty to solve — such as whether the proposed 
litigation is bond fide or vexatious; whether it is soiight with the 
honest object of determining some principle affecting "the fabric,, 
ornaments, or furniture " of the church ; or with the view of re- 
arguing what has been already decided, or harassing opponents by 
unnecessarj' litigation — must find a place; and, further, it is impossible 
to lay down anj- rule by which this Court can dictate to the Bishop 
what particular weight he ought to attach to some circumstances of 
the case rather than to others, or to the conseqiiences to be derived 


from tliem. In the present case, the reasons of the Bishop appear to 
lie confined to the character of the images objected to; and it is by 
considering this in connexion with the existing law as laid down in a 
recent case which deals with the legality of a similar image that he 
arrives at his conclusion. If upon reading the reasons which he has 
stated in writing and giving to them a fair and reasonable construc- 
tion, I find that he has, after considering the whole circumstances 
of the case, arrived at an opinion that proceedings should not 
be taken, I am at a loss to discover any ground upon which 
I can treat that opinion as a nullity. When once it is admitted 
that the Bishop has not only the right to exercise, but the duty 
expi-essly cast upon him by the statute of exercising a discretion, it 
seems to me, adopting the language which was used by Earl Cairns in 
" Julius V. the Bishop of Oxford," that there is not " any occasion, or, 
indeed, any right to examine into the manner in which, or the 
principles upon which, that discretion has been exercised. For the 
exercise of that discretion the Bishop, and the Bishop alone, is 
responsible, and it would, in my opinion, be inconsistent to hold that 
his discretion is an answer to the application for a mandamus, and at 
the same time, on that application, to criticize the grounds upon which 
that discretion has been exercised." It would be inconsistent with 
what I have already said to enter at any length upon the consideration 
of what is the conclusion to which the Bishop has arrived and the 
means by which he has arrived at it ; but as somo arguments were 
used to show that his conclusion and the reasons upon which the 
opinion for it is based are illusory, it may be right that I should add, 
were it only by way of illustration, what appear to me to be in effect 
and substance the grounds and the result of that opinion. It cannot 
be disputed that, if the subject-matter of the complaint could be 
shown to be idem per idem with that which had been complained of 
before and determined by the appropriate tribunal to be lawful, the 
Bishop might properly say that the proceedings shoidd not be taken; 
and again, if any distinction that could be taken between that which 
was now complained of and that which had previously been decided 
to be lawful was so trivial and non-essential as to be, in the opinion 
of the Bishop, immaterial, with reference to the ground upon which 
the complaint was based, he might equally come to the same con- 
clusion. Now, in considering whether the distinction is or is not 
material, the Bishop may well have gone through the same process of 
reasoning as was adopted by Lord Penzance in the case of " Hughes 
V. Edwards," 2, Prob. Div., 361. The Court had there to decide 
whether a sculptured image of Our Lord as crucified was illegal, it 
having been already held that an image of Our Lord representing His 
Ascension was lawful ; and, in summing up the considerations upon 
which his judgment was based, Lord Penzance said : — 

" What are the materials upon which a judgment has to be formed. The 
proposed erection is a fitting and natural architectural ornament. It is 
proposed to be placed in a part of the Church where ornaments of the kind 
are not unfreqnently found. It is not an isolated figure, but a group capable 
of artistic treatment. It differs only from a very similar erection which has 
been held lawful at Exeter, in the circumstance that it portrays the Cruci- 
fixion in the place of the Ascension ; and it differs not at all in essentials 
from other representations of the Crucifixion which have hitherto been 
found harmless, such as that which has stood for so many years in St. Mar- 


garet's Churcli, WestmiriKtcr. Why then, without more, it may be asked, 
why, without further evidence, should the i-)robability of its abuse to super- 
stitious purposes be declared to be established ? " 

I am averse to give much weight to an argument foimded upon tlie 
question why should the Legislature have intrusted to the Eishop a 
power, the importance of which has not been overrated. Where the 
language used is clear and definite, such an argument in itself 
seems to imply a desire to escape from giving effect to the true 
construction of the statute ; but it meets in the present case with 
another and perhaps practically a more powerful answer — namely, 
that the Act beyond all doubt gives to the Bishop a discretion to 
decide whether or not the suit shall proceed, and in doing this it 
cannot escape from intrusting to the Bishop the exercise of his 
.iudgment upon a matter of the greatest weight. Nor must it be 
forgotten in measuring the extent of the discretion which is left to 
the Bishop that the statute in qviestion is not one that creates a 
new offence, or that creates a new and sole remedy for an old 
oft'ence, but that it is supplementary, and provides for the first time 
a new, more expeditious, and more convenient remedy for a mischief 
which could have been, and still can be, attacked by other modes ; for 
it is still open to anyone who complains of the structure and figures 
alluded to in the representation to proceed by the old procedure ; and 
there is nothing irrational or inconvenient in supposing that the 
Legislature when it created this new and more easy remedy for the 
protection of those attacked hedged it round by a special provision 
which insured that it should not be put in motion until the Bishop 
had decided this preliminary question. It was foi'cibly urged 
against the Bishop's opinion that he had not sufficiently dealt with the 
question whether the images objected to were likely to produce 
idolatry, but the representation contains no allegation of actual 
idolatry other than may arise from the character and position of 
the images themselves ; and as this has already been dealt witk 
by the Courts wliicli alone have jurisdiction to deal with such, 
matters, the sole question raised, is whether the distinction between 
the images now complained of and those which have been pro- 
nounced to be legal is such that the present proceedings ought to 
betaken; and this is the very matter upon which the Bishop and 
not this Court is to decide. It was also argued that the reasons set 
forth were insufficient by reason of the last two paragraphs of the 
Bishop's answer, the proposition being that, for aught that appears, 
the Bishop may have founded his opinion solely upon what is stated 
in these paragraphs. To this I cannot assent. It may be that they 
might well have been omitted, but being there tliey must be read and 
construed by the light that is tlirown on them by what has gone 
before, and to treat them as abstract reasons upon which alone the 
opinion has been based is contrary to the ordinary rules of con- 
struction, and assuming that the reasons set forth in the earlier 
paragraphs are within the scope of the Bishop's discretion and that 
the last two paragraplis are to be treated as containing reasons which 
operated upon the Bishop's mind, I cannot say that the "keeping up 
of litigation by raising minor points " is not an evil which ought 
legitimately to be taken into consideration when dealing with the 
question of proceedings vvhicli in the Bishop's opinion tend only to 


raise a qiiestion wliicli lias in substance been already decided. I 
have not overlooked the provision of the statute which requires that 
the Bishop is to state in writing the reason for his opinion. The 
object of this probably was, not merely to avoid delay by requiring 
the Bishop to act within a fixed time, but to insure that he shall 
make public in writing the reasons for his opinion, as they must be 
transmitted to the persons who have made the representation and to 
the person comj^lained of within twenty-one days : and no doubt they 
do in this way afford a security that the reasons shall not be illusory; 
but I cannot, in considering the earlier words of the section, give any 
different effect to them, because the Bishop is to state his reasons in 
writing. To do so would be to create by a false inference an appeal 
to this Court where no such appeal is given by words ; or, in other 
language, to turn the right of the complainant to a mandamus into a 
right to appeal from the reasons and opinion of the Bishop, although 
he has exercised the discretion with which he is invested. In my 
judgment, therefore, the order iiisi ought to be discharged. 

Lord Coleeidge then delivered his judgment in writing, to the 
same effect as Mr. Justice Manisty, that the mandamus should be 
granted. I regret (he said) to be obliged to differ from the conclusion 
at which my Brother Pollock has arrived in this case. His judgment, 
however, sets out so fiilly and so accurately the facts upon which our 
judgment must turn, and describes upon the whole with such perfect 
correctness the principles which are to guide our judgment, that I am 
quite content to take these portions of his opinion as expressing my 
own. It is when we arrive at the application of the principles to the 
facts that I am obliged to part company. Perhaps, however, it may 
tend to clearness if I very shortly summarize the case as moi'e fully 
stated by Mr. Baron Pollock. By the 8th section of 37 and 38 
Vic. c. 85, a certain class of persons have a right to make complaints 
to the Bishop ; and the 9th section enacts what the Bishop is to do 
upon the receipt of the complaints. In short (the words, it is to 
be observed, are imperative) " He shall " put the matter in 
train for adjudication "unless he shall be of opinion, after considering 
the whole circumstances of the case, that proceedings should not be 
taken on the representation (in which case he shall state in writing 
the reasons for his opinion, and such statement shall be deposited in 
the registry of the diocese, and a copy thereof shall fortliwith be trans- 
mitted to the person, or some one of the persons, who shall have made 
the representation and to the person complained of)." These words are 
very direct and plain, and that they give the Bishop a discretion it is 
quite impossible to deny. That discretion the Bishop of Loudon has 
exercised in this case by refusing to allow any proceedings to be taken 
on the representation. And, in obedience to the statute, he has given 
what must be taken to be the reasons for his refusal in writing. The 
Bishop is a man of great ability and of the highest possible education. 
I do not assume for argument's sake, I really believe, that he meant 
his writing to contain his reasons, the reasons he was bound to give 
under the Act of Parliament ; and that it is dealing fairly neither with 
the Bishop nor with the case to hold that he took the oj^jiortunity to 
deliver a censure upon the litigious spirit which might liave found 
appropriate place in a sermon, but certainly had none in a legal state- 
ment of legal reasons, unless the censure represented, as I believe it 
did, his main ' reason,' or one of his main ' reasons,' for the exercise of 


his veto. So, again, liis statement that the judgment in " Phillpotts v. 
Boyd " had decided the ease, and tiiat tlie complainants here were only 
"seeking to engraft an exception on the principle tliere laid down in a 
matter not of grave importance " is, I believe, meant to be taken by 
him, as I take it, for a statement of another main 'reason' for refusing 
to allow the complainants to proceed. I can find no other reasons, no 
other references to the mIioIc circumstances of the case than these, 
and I have read his paper again and again w^ith the real wish to 
discover anything further. Are these reasons sufticient in law ? Are 
they any part of the " whole circumstances of the case " which alone 
the Bishop has a right to consider in forming his opinion? If they 
are, this rule ought to be discharged; if not this rule ought 
to be made absolute. Novr, what are the undisjnited facts 
of this ease? It seems clear that there is no necessity for 
a faculty even for important alterations in the fabric of a cathedral 
church. (" Phillpotts v. Boyd," 6 L. E., Privy Council Appeals, 556). 
So that in a case like the present, in which tlie choir has beeu 
shortened by near forty feet, and the masterpiece of one of the greatest 
architects in the world has been altered, not by erecting the splendid 
baldachin or ciborium, which Dean Milman tells us Wren had 
designed for it, the metropolis and the whole country are absolutely 
in the hands of five clergymen, the holders for a few years of the 
residentiary canonries, responsible to no one, and not controllable by 
anj'. A piece of work, costly and splendid no doubt, has been erected, 
rich in coloured marbles and gilding, and containing, certainly, the 
largest carved crucifix Mhich has been erected inside an English 
church since the Eeformation, or, to speak more correctly, since the 
reign of Queen Elizabeth ; and containing also a large crowned statue 
of the Blessed Virgin with Our Lord as an infant in her arms. By 
persons pi-operly qualified, it is desired to question the legality of this 
structure. The Bishop of Loudon refuses his permission, and a prece- 
dent, surely a most important one, has been set which it is reasonably 
certain will be followed. Now, in cases under the old Church Discip- 
line Act it has been held by the House of Lords that the discretion of 
the Bishop is absolute, and that, be the breaches of the law as gross, 
as numerous, as repeated as you please, if the Bishop thinks the 
offender a good man, or he himself dislikes law, a whole parish is 
under that Act. entirely without redress. It seems at first sight at 
any rate to be somewhat different under the Public Worship Eegula- 
tion Act. That Act, it is true, was passed before " Julius v. the Bishop 
of Oxford " was decided ; but it was passed long after the decision of 
" Seg. V. the Bishop of Chichester," in which a fair warning had beeu 
given of what a Court, composed of very eminent men, might probably 
hold as to the absolute discretion of the Bishop imder the old law. Indeed 
they did hold it ; for, having been counsel in the case, I desire to say 
that I am sure Mr. Justice Wightman stated with his usual accuracy 
the opinions of Lord Campbell and Sir William Erie, a statement 
published at the time in the reports, a statement which they must have 
read, but which was never challenged or questioned by the distin- 
guished men on whose behalf Mr. Justice Wightman professed to 
speak, and whose opinions he said that he expressed. It is therefore 
to my mind at least highly probable that those who passed the Public 
Worship Eegulation Act intended to place some restriction on the 
discretion of the Bishop by compelling him to state his reasons in 

writing. Whether it lias been so placed is, no doubt, a question not 
of mental intention but of legal construction ; yet if the Bishop's dis- 
cretion remains absolute as before, and if his reasons are, as it seems 
to me my Brother Pollock's judgment makes them, practically unex- 
aminable, I fail altogether to see that any change has been made in 
the law, or that the very lightest fetters have been imposed on the will 
of the Bishop. Indeed, if any change has been made, it has been 
made, if I understand my learned brother, not indeed to strengthen, 
for you cannot strengthen what is already absolute, but to protect the 
discretion and make its exercise easier, inasmuch as to some minds to 
refuse permission, giving reasons which may be illusory, but cannot 
be questioned, appears a less arbitrary proceeding than to refuse 
permission by a simple act of the will. I am, therefore, of 
opinion that the "reasons " must be the reasons on wliich the Bishoj) 
acted; they must be, or arise out of, the whole circumstances 
of the case ; and if it is clear from the statement of them that 
they are no such reasons as the statute contemplates, they 
may be treated as if they were no reasons at all, and he may be 
ordered to proceed. With all respect. Lord Cairns's words used as to 
the discretion imder the earlier Act are not in point here. Under that 
Act the discretion was absolute, and the relevancy, or irrelevancy, of 
the reasons given or to be collected for its exercise could not afEect its 
validity. It would cease to be absolute if a Court, thinking the 
reasons for it bad reasons, could setthe exercise of it aside. I agree to 
this. But I deny that under the Public Worship Regulation Act the dis- 
cretion is absolute ; it must be founded upon reasons, and if the reasons 
cannot be considered they had much better not be given. I disclaim 
altogether a right to pronounce upon their sufficiency ; but I claim the 
right to examine their relevancy and their accordance with the Act of 
Parliament. Suppose a Bishop were to write, " I find that Mr. Blank 
denies the cup to the laity, reserves the host, reads the prayers in 
Latin, has a separate altar for the Blessed Virgin, over which he 
places her crowned form, and so forth, and that he has succeeded in 
emptying liis church; that he is a very good man, very generous, and 
very old ; his closing years should not be troubled with law, to which 
I have a great objection, and which never, in my opinion, tends to 
edification, and therefore, imder all the circumstances of the case, I 
forbid all further proceedings." This sounds like a travesty ; but it 
is hardly an exaggeration of what has ah-eady been done in other 
cases ; and if I follow my learned brother, in such a case as this a 
temporal Court has its hands absolutely tied. I will be no party to 
such a decision. I must leave it to the higher tribunals of the 
country to say, as they are bound to say, if they think it, that the 
reasons to be given by the Bishop need have no form even of reasoning 
about them, need not even tend to or have any bearing on the conclu- 
sion wliich professes to be based upon them, and that if the Bishop 
selects any one or two things which have passed through his mind 
while considering the case, states them, and goes on to say that he 
has considered the whole circumstances of the case, then there is an 
end of the matter, and no Court can further interfere. If a Court 
the authority of which binds me, so decides, I shall, of course, what- 
ever private opinion I may entertain, adhere loyally as a Judge to 
what has been so decided. At present the Bishop's general objection 


to litigate does not appear to me to be sucli a "reason" as I ought to 
hold to be a compliance with the plain meaning of tlio Act of 
Parliament. There remains to be considered the only otlier reason 
wliich I can extract from the Bishop's paper — viz. that this case 
has been really decided by the decision in '' Phillpotts v. Boyd" 
{(> L.E., P.O. A., pp. 466, 467). Now the Bishoj) of London was for 
many years Bishoji of Exeter; he is therefore familiar, as I chance 
to be myself, with both these structures, and I must e.xpress respectful 
amazement that he can see the smallest similarity between them, or 
can think that the Judges who decided the Exeter case had the least 
idea that their words would or could be taken by anyone to decide 
the legality of a structure so essentially different from the structure 
with which they were dealing as is this reredos of St. Paul's. But it 
appears to me that not only does one case not cover the other by fair 
inference, but that the Exeter case has been expressly determined not 
to cover this case by the Privy Council itself. The structure with 
which their Lordships were dealing in " Phillpotts v. Boyd " and the 
mode in which thcj^ dealt with it is so clearly described and the 
language is so important that I quote it at length (6 L.K., P.C.A., 
p. 466) :— 

" Wliat, then, is the character of the sculpture on the reredos in the 
case before their Lordships ? For what purpose has it been set up ? 
To what end is it used ? And is it in danger of being abused ? It is 
a sculptured work in high relief, in which are three compartments. 
That in the centre represents the Ascension of our Lord — in which 
the figure of our ascending Lord is separated by a sort of border 
from the figures of the Apostles, who are gazing upwards. The right 
compartment represents the Transfiguration, and the left the Descent 
of the Holy Ghost on the day of Pentecost. These representations 
appear to be similar to those with which everyone is familiar in 
regard to the sacred subjects in question. All the figures are 
delineated as forming part of the connected representation of the 
historical subject. The Ascension necessarily represents our Lord as 
separated from the Apostles, who are gazing at him on his Ascent. 
As finials to the architectural form of the reredos there is on each 
side a separate figure of an angel. It is plain to their Lordsliips that 
the whole structiire has been set up for the purpose of decoration 
only. It is not siiggested that any superstitious reverence has been or 
is likely to be paid to any figures forming part of the reredos, and 
their Lordships are unable to discover anything which distinguishes 
this representation from the numerous sculptured and painted repre- 
sentations of portions of the sacred history to be found in many of 
our cathedrals and parish churches, and which have been proved by 
long experience to be capable of remaining there without giving 
occasion to any idolatrous or superstitious practices. Their Lordships 
are of opinion that such a decorative work would be lawful in any 
other part of the cliTirch, and, if so, would not be unlawful by reason 
of its erection in the place which it occupies. They desire it to be 
understood that nothing decided in this case affects the question of 
superstitious regard being paid contrary to the 22nd Article to any repre- 
seniation, or images that are or may be set up in churches. The law 
will at all times be strong enough to correct and control any such 
a >u^e. but they are of opinion that the sculpture in question is not 


liable to lie impugned in that respect." No one, I tliinlv. can have 
seen the Exeter reredos without entirely accepting the correctness of 
the description, and the sense and justice of the judgment. It is a 
sculptured picture, or rather a series of sculptured pictures, " set up 
for the purpose of decoration only," andaman miist be indeed in Scrip- 
ture phrase " wholly given to idolatry "who could pick out a particular 
figure or figures from these sej^arate groups to worship or to pray to. 
But this very judgment came under review in the case of " Clifton v. 
Itidsdale" (L.E., P. and D., 316), decided by Lord Penzance, and 
again in the appeal from Lord Penzance's judgment to the Privy 
Council (2 L.E., P. and D., 276). The Exeter case was binding on 
Lord Penzance, and he professed to decide in accordance icith it. He, 
liowever, directed the removal of a crucifix, not only on the ground 
that it liad been erected without a faculty, but tliat it was in itself 
unlauful; and if there had been a faculty for its erection he said lie 
should none the less have ordered it to be removed. Mr. Eidsdale 
appealed upon four grounds, and the judgment which has since 
become famous was delivered by Lord Cairns. It was the judgment 
of himself and ten other Judges (two were said to have dissented) with 
five episcopal assessors. Whether Judges are to he tveighed or num- 
bered no judgment can possihly carry greater weight or authority. 
On two points, not material now to be stated, Lord Penzance was 
reversed; on another, also immaterial to the present case, he was 
affirmed; on the question of the crucifix he was also afiirmed; and on 
this subject Lord Cairns exjjressly quoted and adopted the language 
of Lord Penzance, and made it part of the judgment of the Pri^y 
Council. This portion of the judgment is also so important that, as 
before, I quote it fully : — ■ 

" The learned Judge thus describes the screen and crucifix: — ' There 
is a screen of open ironwork stretching across the church, the middle 
part of which is surmounted by a crucifix,' &c. Their Lordships are 
of opinion that, under the circumstances of the case, the ordinary 
ought not to grant a 'faculty' for the crucifix. After referring to 
another case, the learned Judge referred to ' 'Pkillpotts v. Boyd." As 
to this he states that the tribunal, in justifying the erection of the 
Exeter reredos, adhered to the position taken up in the previous case, 
and pronounced the erection lawfnl — though it contained many sculp- 
tured images — on the ground that it had been set up for the purpose 
of decoration only, declaring that it was not in danger of being abused, 
and that it was not suggested that any superstitious reverence has 
been or is likely to be paid to any of the figures ujion it. He 
then proceeds to consider whether it would be right to conclude 
that the crucifix in the present case was set up for the purpose of 
decoration only, whether it is in danger of being abused, and whether 
it could be suggested that superstitious reverence had been or Avas 
likely to be paid to it. He stated that the crucifix as formerly set up 
in our churches had a special history of its own. He refers to the 
rood ordinarily found before the Eeformation in the parish churches 
of the country, and which was in fact a crucifix with images at the 
base, erected on a structure called the rood-loft, traversing the church 
at the entrance to the chancel, and occupying a position analogous to 
that which the iron screen does in the present case. . . . And he 
contimies thus, ' It is easy to say, What proof is there of danger of 
idolatry now? What facts are there to point to the probability of 


abuse? But when the Court is dealin£f with a well-known sacred 
object, put up by authority in all the churches of England before the 
Eeformation and for the purposes of adoration — when, it is told, that 
now, after a lapse of 300 years, it is suddenly proposed to set this 
up again as an architectural ornament only, it is hard not to distrust 
the uses to which it may come to be put, or escape apprehension that 
wliat begins in " decoration " may end in idolatry. If this apprehen- 
sion is a just and reasonable one then there exists that likelihood of 
superstitious reverence which the Privy Council in " Phillpotts v. 
JSoyd " pronounced to be fatal to the lawfulness of all images and 
figures set up in a churcli.' In these observations, said Lord Cairns, 
their Lordships concur, and select them as the grounds of decision 
wliicli commend themselves to their judgment. They are prepared, 
tlierefore, to alErm the decision directing the removal of the crucifix, 
while they think it important to maintain, as to representations of 
sacred objects and persons in a churcli, the liberty established in 
' PhiJJpotts\. Boyd,' subject to the duty of the Ordinary so to exercise 
his judicial discretion in granting or refusing faculties as to guard 
against things likely to be abused for purposes of superstition." 

Now, at first sight it would seem that this is a distinction drawn in 
point of law by the highest possible authority — none, I should have 
supposed, was necessary for drawing it in point of fact and sense- 
between the Crucifix or the Eood, and sculptured groups representing 
otlier scenes either in the history of our Lord, or in that of the Old 
and l^Qyv Testaments. But it is insisted that the crucifix in " Ridsdale 
V. Clifton," was on a screen, and that it was from the position of it, 
and from the fact that it was, as it wei-e, the successor or repro- 
duction of a feature in the pre-Reformation churches in this 
country which had been specially condemned, that Lord Penzance 
and tlie Privy Council deduced the probability of its being abused 
for superstitious purposes and decreed its removal. It is true 
that the crucifix in that case was on a screen between nave 
and chancel, and that here it is on a screen which fences off the 
cast end of the cathedral from the choir by about 40 ft. ; but I cannot 
think that the Privy Council intended to insist on this distinction. 
The rood screen was by no means universal, even in England ; in 
cathedrals, at least since the introduction of organs, I believe it to 
have been very unusual; in foreign countries also of tlie Roman 
obedience, it was, I believe, by no means a common feature ; but the 
lioly rood, either Christ on the cross alone or with St. Mary or St. 
John on either side, was to be found imiversally, or, if that be too 
strong a word to be safely used, at least almost universallj^ in some 
part of every chiu'ch, either over some altar or elsewhere. Wherever 
it was, assuredly it was not a decoration only, tliough a decoration it 
might be, but an object of reverence and devotion ; and an architect 
of the middle ages wovild have been indeed surprised if he had been 
told that the Holy Eood was only to be a finial, or a corbel, or a 
capital, a piece of architectural decoration. No one will doubt tliis 
wlio looks even at so common a book as Yiollet le Due's 
Dictionary of Architecture or any book on Christian iconography. 
The rood or the crucifix, wherever placed, has been, and lias been 
intended for, an Object of tvorship — a finial, a corbel, an angel, a bas- 
relief of the Nativity, the Epiphany, the Last Supper liad not. The 
Privy Council were dealing flith a crucifix which, though on a screen, 

was 18 in. high, which they ordered to be removed ; the figure of our 
Lord in this case is 5 ft. high, and it is supposed, because it is in 
another sort of screen, that the Privy Council have actually permitted 
it ; and, further, that to say they have not, is an attempt the sole 
object of which is to engraft an exception on their judgment in a 
matter not of grave importance. I must take the freedom to say that 
it is not only legal minds which in the stress of argument are led to 
confound things essentially and inherently distinct. If this be not in 
the ordinary sense of the word a crucifix or rood, and if it be not 
obviously, at least, liable to abuse, one must distrust the evidence of 
one's eyes and unlearn all one's history. It may be that an 18 in. 
crucifix on a screen is more liable to abuse than one 6 ft. or 7 ft. high 
(I speak of the crucifix) in a screen, but to say that a judgment which 
forbids the first allows the last as an " arcliitectural decoration " is, to 
my mind, to pervert the plain meaning of the Judges, and to evade 
the force of the language by classing under the term '•architectural 
decoration " something to which the term is utterly inapplicable, and 
has never been applied since Cliristian history began. Pictures and 
painted windows are outside the argument. !Xo one ever worshipped 
a painted window or a picture, unless it were one of those miracle- 
working paintings which, so far as I have ever seen them, are m a 
very diif erent sense of the word ' miraculous ' indeed. The construction, 
therefore, placed by the Bishop of London on the case to which he 
refers as his authority appears to me so entirely mistaken that I must 
treat any reason founded upon that construction as no reason within 
the statute. I do not forget the two cases of " Combe v. JEdivards"* 
(2 L. E., P. and D., 354) and "Hughes v. JEdivards" (2 L. E., P. and 
I)., 361), in both of which, \mder circumstances very different from 
the present case, a bas-relief of the Crucifixion and a small movable 
crucifix were allowed ; but I do not refer to them at length because 
the Bishop does not refer to them; and I am concerned with the law 
only so far as it enters into the Bishop's reasons. For the same reason 
I do not refer to " Dicrst v. Masters" (1 L. R., P. D., 373), in 
which, also under very different circumstances, a crucifix was dis- 
allowed. There is a matter on which very little has been said, but on 
which I must add a word. In the second paragraph of the repre- 
sentation complaint is made of the erection of an image of the Blessed 
Virgin, oft. Gin. high, with the Holy Child in her arms. This figure 
is crowned, and is of the size of life. It is no part of my duty to say 
a word upon the propriety of the position of this image, still less on 
the religious questions connected with the office and worship of the 
Blessed Virgin ; but certainly, when one remembers the feelings and 
controversies of but a few years ago, to find the Bishop of London 
treating as a matter of no importance whether it is lawful to erect a 
statue of the Madonna, robed and crowned as Queen of Heaven, 
Eegina Cceli, oft. 6in. high, over the altar at the east end of the 
Metropolitan Cathedral of St. Paul's is a proof, if of nothing else, of 
the fact that human affairs never continue in one state. I suppose it 

* Because in the case of Combe v. Edwards " the charge was not made 
out." [Ed. C. I.] 


is to be classed witli other so-called "architectural decorations," and 
if so, what I have said upon that subject must be taken to include 
wliat I have to say as to tliis statue. If, however, it were granted to 
me, as I have no reason to think it would be, that my view of the law 
as laid down in, or to be collected from, " RidsdaJe v. Clifton " is abso- 
hitely correct, it would, as I understand my brother, be replied to me 
that it made no difference, that we cannot examine the Bisliop's 
reasons ; and that if as one of the whole circumstances of the case 
lie has considered the state of the law, and (as we think) has mistaken 
the lau\ it makes no difference. He has considered the case, he has 
given his reasons bona fide, and there is an end of the matter. I 
cannot think this. I admit it is difficult to draw the line in words, 
but there must be a line. Suppose the Bishop were to give as liis 
reason that the proceedings in this case nad not been taken 
in time because he considered " five years " in the 8th section 
of the Public Worship Eegulation Act really meant three or 
two, or that, at all events, it was liighly inexpedient that 
anything should be done to touch a building after three years or 
two, I suppose (I speak with due doubt) that no one would 
say that a Court of law was bound to treat such statement as any 
reason at all. If so, I am of opinion that for the Bishop to mistake 
the meaning of a decision on which he founds his own is a reason for 
a Court of law setting aside the Bishop's action, not founded on the 
condition precedent required by Parliament. I have given my reasons 
for differing from the Bishop's construction, and, right or wrong, I 
am bound to act upon my opinion and disregard the reasons he has 
given. Two short observations I desire to make before I conclude. 
In thus deciding I am not yielding to any feelings or prejudices of 
my own as to the matter in dispute. Personally I have no objection 
whatever to the crucifix, nor the least desire to discourage its use, on 
any grounds outside the law. As a beautiful and touching symbol of 
the greatest event in the world's history, if the law allowed, I would 
gladly welcome it. Dr. Arnold has left upon record his wish for its 
re-introduction. Neither did the great Luther himself object, nor 
have the churches of the Lutheran confession in any way, for more 
than three centuries, objected to its public use. In many parts of 
Protestant Europe a crucifix is to be found in every church. But there 
it is allowed by law; here, as I think, it is not, and this makes all 
the difference. For this is my second and last remark. The 
only great importance, or, at any rate, the great and general impor- 
tance, of this case to my mind is that if my view be correct, the 
supremacy of the law will at least be to some extent established over 
all the subjects of the Queen. I think it very mischievous that in 
matters which touch the inner life and the sincere religious feelings of 
men, when, as in matters of ritual, men must either join in what they 
honestly believe to be false and abject superstition, or cease to attend 
the services of a church which is, perhaps, endeared to them by a 
thousand memories and associations, or when they believe, as men do 
believe, that the practices and the outward forms of a building or of 
worship are in direct violation of the laws of the church to which 
they belong, and yet are forced upon them by the will of a single 
ecclesiastic, I think it in such cases very mischievous that such men 
when they want honestly to try whether this or that practice is or is 


not witliin the law of tlieir churcli sliould be met by the simple will 
of a Bishop, who tells them that the matter shall not even be 
discussed, and that, like naughty school-boys, they must learn to obey 
their spiritual pastors and masters. A dispensing power cannot be 
safely lodged in hands entirely irresponsible ; and to say this is quite 
consistent with the truest personal respect for those who sometimes, 
in my opinion, misuse it. The better a man is, the more averse to 
strife, the holier, the gentler in his own conversation, the more 
will he be temj)ted to disregard the law, and, if he has the power, 
to prevent it being put in force against men of whose goodness 
and earnestness he is persuaded and whose lives he honours. 
I recognise this, and, in a sense, I highly respect it. But, as a 
lawyer, I am before and above all things for the supremacy of law ; 
and it is because I think that the later Act does limit "discretion" to 
some extent, that I am so anxious not to fritter it away. Under the 
old law the Bishop had this to say — that he was, in form, a party to 
the proceedings ; that liis office was being promoted, and there was 
some reason, therefore, under the old Church Discipline Act, which 
dealt with procedure only, why he should still be allowed to say 
whether he woTild or would not permit his discipline to be enforced. 
Under the Public Worship Eegulation Act this is not so. The Bishop 
is not a party to the proceedings, and therefore, unless there is some 
real reason capable of being clearly stated, the matter should be 
suffered to go on. And if, in such a case as this, these reasons are to 
be held sufficient we may as well admit at once that as to all religious 
observances, although we belong to a Church clothed with dignity and 
maiutaiiu^d in a magnificent position by the law, our rights are not 
those which the law gives us, but what a few dignified ecclesiastics 
may from time to time determine. I am of opinion that this rule 
should be made absolute. 

The result was that the rule for a mandamus was made absolute. 

Sir H. James said it was agreed on both sides that it would not be 
necessary to have a formal ''return" and pleadings thereto, as the 
other side could appeal against this order, and so the mandamus 
would formally be issued but delayed while the appeal was pending. 

Mr. Jeune, on the part of the Bishop, assented, and so it was 

Hule absolute for a mandamus, subject to appeal. 


for Churchwardens and Parishioners. 
Post Free Is It^cZ. 

Chuech Association, 14, Buckingham Street, Strand, 

To be obtained at the Office of the Church Association, 14, Buckingliani Street. Straud, Lomilon. 
By Subscribers, for distribution free. By others, at id each or ]is per 100. 
4th Thousand.] 


uPGh AsiociEtiGni 




t.r)UFcl)ir)ar) " oj -I- v'^J' °9^ C>epf ., l§§9j 

Heni^ Miller, 


3Lantion ; 


Ko. CVI. 





^he fi^sseQMfei©^ 


{Reprinted, from the " Churcliman," for June, 1889.) 

the courtesy of the Editor of the 
Churchman I am permitted to reply 
to the attack made in the May number, 
upon the Association of which I have 
the honour to be the Secretary. I feel 
naturally, and with more reason than 
Mr. Gedge could possibly do, the need 
of that charitable ''allowance for want 
of literary skill '' for which he asks ; 
but I also feel that I have the advantage of possessing 
an acquaintance with the facts. 

Mr. Gedge asserts that every one of the points of ritual 
involved in the charges against Bishop King teaches 
doctrines that " are tvxxej" and " are part of the faith 
common to the Bishop and the prosecutors." To make 
this good he misrepresents the symbolism assigned to the 
usages in question by the men who employ them, a 
symbolism which by historical inquiry can be shown to 
have been for centuries their recognised raison d'etre. Let 
us briefly scan his list : 

1. The Tioo Lights before the Sacrament. — This rite was 
initiated by Pope Innocent III., who, at the Council of 
Lateran,^ first decreed ''transubstantiation" ; and the two 
lights wei'e subsequently introduced into England by the 

1 Migne's " Patrologie," ccxvii. 811. 


Papal Legate of the Council at Oxford, a.d. 1222,^ wlien 
the decrees of Lateran were carefully followed. When 
Cranmer swept away the cultus of the Saints by means of 
candles burned " before '' their images, the doctrine of the 
" Real " Presence continued, nevertheless, to be taught by 
means of similar lights burned " before " the consecrated 
Wafer. In 1536, 1538 and 1539 Royal Injunctions issued 
directing " no other lights to be used but that before the 
Corpus Ghristi."^ So, in 1541, Henry wrote to the Primate: 
" We, by our injunctions, commanded that no offering or 
setting of lights or candles should be suffered in any church, 
but only to the Blessed Sacrament of the Altar.^ The 
bloody act of the Six Articles sanctioned by Convocation, 
which made the denial of transubstantiation a capital 
offence, remained in full force during the first year of King 
Edward VI., a.d. 1547. Commissions were issued under 
that Act,'^ and men were imprisoned under it with a view 
to their capital punishment during the twelve months 
which preceded the repeal of that murderous statute in 
December, 1547. No reform of the Mass either as to its 
doctrine or ritual had been effected when the Injunctions 
of King Edward VL, permitting to "remain still two lights 
upon the High Altar before the Sacrament," issued on 
July 31st, 1547. The wording of those Injunctions, th.e 
received doctrine of both Church and State, and the entire 
service of the Mass, were alike unchanged from what each 
had been when, but a twelvemonth before, Anne Askew 
and three others were burned alive for repudiating their 
combined teaching. Yet these Injunctions of 1547 are the 
precise ground upon which the legal sanction for ''Altar 
Lights ^' is rested by Sir R. Phillimore, and by the 
advocates of the practice. Mr. Gedge surely knows how 
<j)co<i and \v-xvo<i stand contrasted in the New Testament. 
It is, therefore, a complete misconception to assume that 
lights "before the Sacrament" were ever used to teach an 
abstract doctrine about the illuminating power of Christ, 
or of His Spirit, as Mr. Gedge imagines: for, "always, 
everywhere and by all," they have been employed to teach 
that within the consecrated host hanging in the pyx, 
screened in a tabernacle, or lying upon the "altar," prior 
to reception, and therefore nidependent of the faith or 

1 Wilkins, i. 595. 2 ma., iii. 81(3, 842, 847. 

■' Slrype's 'Jianmer, i. 211. E. H. S. edit. 

* i'oxe, Act. and Mon., Townsend's edit., v. App., No. xx., and viii. 715. 

nubelief of the recipient, the body ;uk1 blood of Christ are 
tJiere as "the light of the world." Upon that belief 
depends both the adoration of the Host and the "sacrifice" 
of the Mass. " Historic continuity " proves that the lights 
upon the High Altar "before the Sacrament^' at Lincoln 
Cathedral mean now just what the same lights meant when 
similarly burned prior to the Reformation, viz. that behind 
them is the Object of worship in honour of whose "^ Real 
rresence^' they are lit. The Royal Injunctions (or, rather, 
Visitation Articles) of 1549,^ and the Injunctions of Ridley/ 
(1550) and Hooper (1551),^ forbade nominatim two of the 
practices now charged upon the Bishop of Lincoln on the 
express ground that they were a " counterfeiting of the 
Popish Mass," and that they were contrary to '' the King^s 
Book of Common Prayer," viz. that very First Prayer 
Book which, though no longer legal, is claimed by Bishop 
King as the source of the ornaments rubric upon which 
he bases his published defence. King Edward VL, Ridley, 
and Hooper are higher authorities as to the recognised 
symbolism of altar lights, and of singing the Agnus Dei 
before the Host than any which can be produced on the other 
side. Ridley refused to enter the choir of St. PauFs until 
the altar lights had been extinguished. Yet, by so doing, 
he and his colleagues who "^ lit that candle, which by the 
grace of God shall never be put out;" assuredly did not 
mean to deny that Christ is the true Light of the world. 

2. The Agnus Dei. — Mr. Gedge asks, " Is it possible that 
any humble Christian should think it Avrong to sing ' Lamb 
of God, that takest away the sins of the woi-ld'?^' The 
innocent ingenuity of such an inquiry must not blind us to 
its entire irrelevancy. Ridley and Hooper thought it very 
" wrong to sing the Agmis Dei " in presence of the 
consecrated wafer as an act of worship addressed to " the 
Blessed Sacrament." And that is the precise practice 
Avhich the Church Association are seeking to eradicate, yet 
which readers of the Churchman are invited to condone, or, 
rather, to vindicate and preserve as being beyond reproach I 

3. The Mixed Chalice. — Mr. Gedge tells us that "the 
mixed chalice typifies the water and the blood from Christ's 
riven side which flowed." But he forgets that that was 
not a "mixed stream" at all. On the contrary, it was 
the visible separation oi the two which the Apostle "saw 

1 Cardwell Doc. Ann. No. xv. ^ j^/,;.^ j^q. xxi. 

* Later Writings of Bp. Hooper, p. 128. 

and bare witness " to as a proof of the completed death 
which constituted the " finished " sacrifice for the sins of 
the whole world, but which the Mass, according to Lincoln 
Use, seeks to supplement. The " confusion of substance " 
can be no fit symbol of that unamalgamated duality of 
nature which the Athanasian Creed affirms. "The majesty 
of Christ's estate hath not extinguished the verity of His • 
manhood," and, therefore, cannot be imaged by the wine 
in the chalice swallowing up a few drops of that fluid of 
which the prophet Isaiah (i. 22) spoke disparagingly as 
being an adulteration. St, Paul uses for the " corruption " 
of doctrine in 2 Cor. ii. 17, the very word taken from the 
Septuagint version of the prophecy to which I refer ; and 
the symbolism thus authenticated is both more germane as 
well as more authoritative than the inconsistent alternative 
interpretations which Mr. Gedge selects out of half a dozen 
others equally fantastic and wanton. 

4. The Sign of the Cross. — Mr. Gedge defends the 
"reverent use on a solemn occasion" (at the individual 
choice of the celebrant) of certain aerial crossings. But he 
forgets that our 34th Article does not permit such liberties 
to be taken with public worship at the caprice of individuals, 
and that the burdensome load of superstitious ceremonies 
complained of in the Preface to the Prayer Book of 1549 
arose from acting upon the advice which he now renews. 

" Some ceremonies entered into the Church by indiscreet devotion 
and such a zeal as was without knowledge ; and for because that they 
were winked at in the beginning they grew daily to more and more 

5. The Eastward Position. — Mr. Gedge defends this on 
the ground that, " so far as he had been able to ascertain 
{sic), it is not intended to teach any particular doctrine." 
It would be of great interest to know what steps Mr. 
Gedge has taken to " ascertain " this. Did he never read 
what Dr. Pusey said at St. James's Hall in 1874 ? 

"The standing before the altar means the primitive doctrine of the 
Euoharistic sacrifice, and the bowing after Sarum Use at consecration 
means Eucharistic adoration." 

Such was Dr. Pusey's answer to the celebrated letter 
dated May, 1874, in which Canon Selwyn said : 

" It is notorious that the position facing eastward is the expression 
of a belief that the consecrating minister performs a sacrificial act ; 
by it is signified and expressed the solemn oblation and sacrificial 
presentation made by the celebrant after the example of Christ." 

Mr. Gedge thinks that "the nearer anyone is to believing 

in the Real Presence, tlie more anxious he should be that 
the bread and wine be seen." But if he would turn to such 
old-fashioned High Churchmen as L'Estrange, Wheatly, 
and Nicholls, he would find that long before Kitualism was 
invented, the opposite doctrine was everywhere recognised. 
Professor J. J. Blunt (no fanatical Puritan) wrote of the 
rubric : 

" Tliis done, he returns to the north side and breaks the bread, and 
takes the cup before the people, i.e. in their siglit, the Cliurch not 
wishing to make the manner of consecration — as the Eomish priest 
does — a mystery. Thus the former position was merely taken up in 
order to the subsequent act, that tlie priest ' may, with the more 
readiness and decency, break the bread.' So that they mistake this 
rubric altogether, I apjireheud, and violate both its letter and spirit, 
who consecrate the elements with their back to the people, after the 
manner of the Church of Eome."' 

The actual experience of Christendom is at variance with 
Mr. Gedge's a 'priori reasonings about what " should be ; " 
and (what may strike him as of more importance) he is not 
consistent with himself. For in the same breath he quotes 
Bishop Ken : " When at Thine altar I see the bread broken 
and the wine poured out, oh, teach me,'' etc.; and yet asks: 
" What devout communicant lifts his eyes from his Prayer 
Book to see the act of breaking the bread or lifting the cup 
from the Table?" 

The answer to that would require much time to complete 
the needful enumeration. To begin with, unless the 
Apostles had so done, we should have lost the voucher of 
those who " bare record " as to the not utterly trivial acts 
which the Master bade them "^do in remembrance of Him," 
and a knowledge of which was granted to St. Paul by 
express revelation. How could such acts conduce to His 
" remembrance " if the disciples were so '' devout " as to 
be gazing fixedly all the time at their Psalters, from which 
{after the consumption of the consecrated viands) they 
*'sang an hymn"? The compilers of our Liturgy were 
so far from regarding that manual as the Kiblah, that they 
prescribed ''decency" in the performance of the manual 
acts " before the people " ; and " decency " in outward 
acts necessarily has reference to the spectators. Cosin 
urged that the breaking of the bread is a " needful circum- 
stance belonging to this Sacrament." Wren arranged the 
pews so that " the people would the better hear and see 

1 " Parish Priest," Cth edit., p. 333. 


wliat tlie minister said and did in his administration."^ 
The Welsh Prayer Book, authorized by Convocation and 
by the Act of Uniformity, provided for the manual acts 
being done "in the sight of the people.'^ ^ Bishop Gauden, 
one of the anti-Pui-itan divines at the Savoy, published a 
devotional work, " The Whole Duty of a Communicant," 
which received the imprimatur of Archbishop Sancroft who 
acted as secretary at every state of the revision of the 
Prayer Book in 1661. In this work occurs the following" 
direction : 

At the time of the consecration ^.r i/otir eye upon the elements and at 
the actions of the minister. . . . we ought joyfully to meditate after 
this manner, etc. 

Bishop Gunning, another of the Revisers, required his 
church-wardens to certify as to the due performance of 
these manual acts^ which they could hardly be required to 
do if no devout person might " lift his eyes from his Prayer 
Book " in the manner eschewed by Mr. Sydney Gedge. 
Beveridge, Ken, Wilson, Horneck, Kiddei', and many other 
devotional writers on Holy Communion, appeal to the sense 
of sight {visibile signum) as designed by our Lord to 
enkindle gratitude. A sacrificial feast was never "par- 
taken" with closed eyes; and the early Christians regarded 
" the spiritual Divine table as a memorial of that first and 
ever memorable table of the spiritual Divine Supper." 
What right, then, has either the " devout " Mr. Gedge or 
Bishop King to rob the people of this Divine provision for 
their benefit ? For as Archdeacon Yardley, who wrote in 
1728, observes, respecting the Prayer of Consecration, the 
English celebrant 

" doth not stand before the altar as the Eomish priests do, nor, like 
them, pronounce the words in a low voice, to countenance their 
pretended miracle of transubstantiation, and to make the people gaze 
with wonder on those who are thought to perform it in that secret 
manner, but the priest in the Church of England says the prayer with 
an audible voice, as in the Primitive Church, that the people may hear 
and join with him, and stands so as he may with readiness and decency 
break the bread before the people, and take the cup into his hands ; 
that they may observe and meditate upon tJiose actions which are 
significant and proper to this rite."' 

6. Rinsing and Ablution. — That the officiating clergyman 
should ostentatiously drink the rinsings of the chalice and of 

1 " Parentalia," p. 78. ^ Pen-y's "Report of the Folkestone Case," p. 501. 
* "Rational Communicant," p. 90. 

his own fing-ers (over wliich water is poured^ lest a crumb or 
drop of the deified '' substance '' should adhere to them)^ Mr. 
Gedge regards as a proof of great carefuhiess in " obeying 
the direction" of the rubric to consume "reverently"! 
What Mr. Gedge as matter of taste^ calls '^ reverent/' the 
Primate of the Northern Province more justly characterized 
as "disgusting.'^ And, be it remembered, there is no 
" limited liability " in public acts of an idolatrous nature. 
" Oratio communis fit per ministros ecclesias in person avi 
totius populi/' says Lyndwood. " He that biddeth. him 
God-speed is partaker of his evil deeds/' says St. John (cf, 
1 Tim. V. 22) . We do not go to church to " fix our eyes 
upon our Prayer Books'' or to say our "closet" prayers, 
but to join in a common act of public worship, of which the 
minister is but the mouthpiece, and for which every layman 
has his own individual share of responsibility. 

Leaving the details of ritual observance, Mr. Gedge next 
assui-es us that Bishop King merely holds that " th» Christian 
ministry came from above ; " and that Viscount Halifax " ex- 
pressly limits {sic) the presence of Christ to tlio heart of the 
believer." Such rash and inaccurate statements ought not 
to be published, and Mr. Gedge incurs grave responsibility 
by making them. Pope Leo and Cardinal Manning both 
teach that Christ is "present in the heart," and that '•' the 
Christian ministry is from above." But neither the Bishop 
of Rome nor the Bishop of Lincoln will adopt Mr. Gedge's 
further denial that it is Christ present in the bread and wine 
who is the Light of the world, to whom the Agnus Dei is to 
be addressed as being on the " altar," and who is offered up 
at each mass by the sacrificing priest. Neither of those 
divines will repudiate as a 

"soul-dostroying stiperstition that the priest who can work this miracle 
is a mediator between man and God, between the sinner and his Saviour, 
a vicar of Christ, who has power to forgive the sins of a confessing 

Yet those are Mr. Gedge's own words, selected by him to 
bring to a definite issue the whole matter. I unreservedly 
accept that challenge. I say that Mr. Gedge's representa- 
tion of the teaching of Viscount Halifax and of Bishop King is 
a complete and entire misrepresentation of their well-known 
and repeatedly published public utterances and teaching. 
That is a plain and definite issue of fact. Space will not 
permit me now to copy out the evidence on this matter. 


Suffice it to say, that for one penny tlie readers of tlie 
Ghurchman may see 'pages of such evidence collected by 
Mr. Hancliard in his " Sketch of the Life of Bishop King " 
(Kensit), I have examined his references, and take the 
responsibility of saying that they are entirely trustworthy. 
As to the President of the E.C.U., the single extract given 
in our Annual Report just published, may suffice. 

What is it, then, which we are now fighting about ? It 
is as to the truth or falsehood of such doctrines as these : 

1st. That Christ is continuously offering in heaven a propitiatory 
sacrifice for sin. 

2ud. That this imaginary sin-offering is represented on earth at each 

3rd. That this mass-offering is applicable to the sins of the dead, 
the absent, and even to the benefit of the animal and vegetable creation. 

4th. That the priest is not a mere "ambassador /b>' Christ," but an 
ambassador to Christ, mediating authoritatively on behalf of sinners. 

5th. That the Divinely revealed and ordinary channel for the re- 
mission of post-baptismal sin is sacramental confession, and absolution 
granted judicially by a priest sitting fro trihunali. 

6th. That Christ has given to bishops only a power of jurisdiction 
indefeasible by Katious, Kings, and Parliaments, and also a power of 
legislation which mere laymen have no right to share— except casually 
and on sufferance. Durante heneplacito : by the permission of the 
Successors of the Apostles. 

Such doctrines, I say, are now taught in theological col- 
leges, approved by examining chaplains, and adopted by a 
steadily increasing majority of the clergy without any active 
remonsti'ance, so far as is known, by Mr. Gedge and those 
friends of "position, influence, and reputation" whom he 
modestly forbears to particularize. Mr. Gedge says that, 
" by arguments and exhortation," the truth should be main- 
tained. So say we ; but we have not been content with 
"prave ^orts," but have done something in the way of 
" teaching," and " argument." We can point, for instance, 
to a long list of publications which, at least, attempt to deal 
with the errors which Mr. Gedge says should be " resisted 
unto blood," but which, so far as the world is permitted to 
know, his friends give not the smallest evidence that they 
understand or even recognise. Mr. Gedge has set an 
'' example " of candour, and I desire to come behind in no 
gift. At every crisis in which " Zion in her anguish with 
Babylon must cope," Mr. Gedge has hitherto been found a 
consistent supporter of compromise with error as being the 
only means of averting disestablishment. If it be true, 
however, that hostile " Counter-associations " to the Church 


Association, including "nearly every man of position, influ- 
ence, or reputation among evangelical men," have been 
secretly formed all over England, I will ask Mr. Gedge to 
tell us what one thing they have done to manifest their 
intelligent acquaintance with the very existence among us 
of the six root heresies I have above enumerated. Where 
is their " teaching," their " argument," their " exhortation "1 
Surely they should not continue any longer to hide the 
light which (Mr. Gedge says, and we have only his word 
for it) is in them. On his own chosen ground of " argument 
and exhortation," then, the C. A. is " in evidence,'' and Mr. 
Gedge's " Counter-associations " are not. 

I would further point out to him that an Established 
Church, as such, is a mundane institution, and that the 
perversion of its endowments, and the violation of money 
contracts, and the abuse of the " veto " created by statutes, 
and the " freehold " tenure of paroc^iial, diocesan, and 
territorial rights and immunities cannot be dealt with by 
the mere force of " example," or by the influence, however 
great, of the tract distributor. Legislation is needed, and 
still more the enforcement of good and wise laws, which are 
now being deliberately broken with a high hand by men 
who (like the Pharisee in the parable) proclaim themselves 
to be, in some distinctive sense, " holy men." Surely some- 
thing more than " argument " is here needed : "These things 
ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.^' 

We are told that by our action we "have established the 
use of the surplice in the pulpit." Now since the dress of 
the preacher has never been made the subject of litigation, 
or of a judicial decision, this alleged fact would, on the 
Gedgian system of " reasoning," go to show that it was the 
absence of " persecution " which had caused the change. 
That does not help Mr. Gedge's contention very much. 
And the five years which have been absolutely free from 
any "prosecutions" of ours (and during which Mr. Sydney 
(xedge was, ex hypothesi, "resisting unto blood") have been 
remarkable for the unprecedentedly steady and rapid in- 
crease of Romish teaching and organization, and of ritual 
illegalities, within the Established Church. But we are 
told that we have " obtained from the highest courts the 
declaration that it is lawful to affirm " Mr. Bennett's doc- 
trines. Surely that is an extraordinary statement for a 
lawyer to make. Everybody remembers that Mr. Bennett's 
judge was the brother-in-law of Archdeacon Denison, and 


that liis " judgment " was in substance the very 
Catena (compiled for Denison^s defence) which had been 
proved twenty years before^ by Dean Goode,^ to consist of 
downright misquotations. Also that this advocate- judge 
succeeded in striking out (on technical grounds) from the 
articles of charge the " reception by the wicked/' for which 
our 29th Article had been devised (like theotohos, or homo- 
ousion) as the touchstone of (eucharistic) heresy. Lastly, 
that Mr. Grladstone pitchforked two brand-new judges (one 
of whom had never before sat as a judge) into the Court of 
Appeal within a week of the trial, a circumstance to which 
the Ghiirch Times of April 21, 1876, attributes the acquittal 
of Mr. Bennett. 

With these facts before him, a gentleman who professes 
Evangelical principles thinks it candid and fair to assert 
that an offence acquitted only in 'personam in a given case 
was thereby judicially pronounced to be " established as 
lawful." A verdict of " Not Proven " means the pronounc- 
ing "lawful" everything charged against the person 
acquitted ! As though one murderer acquitted proved the 
"' lawfulness " of murder ! I submit that Mr. Gedge's re- 
presentation of the Bennett judgment is unfair in spirit 
even more than in the letter ; and I ask my readers to 
compare with it the actual judgment itself, from which the 
following extracts are taken : 

The Real Presence. — The Cliurcli of England holds and teaches 
affirmatively that in the Lord's Supper the Body and Blood of Christ 
are given to, taken, and received by the faithful communicant. She 
implies, therefore, to that extent a presence of Christ in the ordinance 
to the soul of the worthy recipient. As to the mode of this presence 
she affirms nothing, except that the Body of Christ is " given, taken, 
and eaten in the Supper only after an heavenly and spiritual manner," 
and that " the means whereby the Body of Christ is received and 
eaten is faith." Any other presence thau this — any presence which is 
not a presence to the soul of the faithful receiver — the Church does 
not by her Articles and Formularies affirm or requii-e her ministers 
to accept. This cannot be stated too plainly. 

The Church of England by the statement in the 28th Article of 
Eeligiou that the body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the 
Lord's Supper, only after a heavenly and spiritual manner, excludes 
undoubtedly any manner of giving, taking, or receiving, which is not 
heavenly or spiritual. 

Sacrifice. — The Church of England does not by her Articles or 
Formularies teach or affirm the doctrine maintained by the respondent, 
That she has deliberately ceased to do so would appear clearly from a 
comparison of the present Communion Office with that of Xing 

1 "Nature of Christ's Presence," pp. 829, 779, 871, 768, 8G9, 889. 


Edward's first book, and of this again with the Canon of the Mass in 
the Sarnra Missal. It was no longer to be an altar of sacrifice, but 
merely a tabk* at which the communicants were to partake of the 
Lord's Sup])or. 

It is not lawful for a clergyman to teach that the sacrifice or offer- 
ing of Christ upon the cross, or the redemption, propitiation, or satis- 
faction wrought by it, is or can be repeated in the ordinance of the 
Lord's Supper; nor that in that ordinance there is or can be any 
sacrifice or ofl'ering of Christ which is elBcacious in the sense in which 
Christ's death is efficacious to procure the remission of the guilt or 
punishment of sins. 

But the point on which I desire to grapple with Mr, 
Sydney Gedge is the assumption that 

The illegality of these additional ceremonies being admitted, those 
who break the law should be punished. Possibly ; but it is not your 
business to put the law in force for that purpose. There are high 
officers in the Church, and if they do not their duty, your conscience 
is not burthened. 

That is^ that bishops should be not only fatherly advisers 
and patrons, but informers and prosecutors, as well as 
" personal '* judges ! Mr. Gedge must pardon us if we cannot 
accept him as the arbiter of our consciences. To us it seems 
the clear duty of every member of the Church, " in his 
vocation and ministry," to resist each and every attempt to 
pervert the endowments of an Established Church to the 
systematic pi'opagatiou of Popery. Whether Mr. Gedge 
approves or not, the law has assigned to " aggrieved 
parishioners " the duty and the power of " putting the law 
in force.''' Still, though not a" man of position, reputation, 
or influence," the '' aggrieved " has something to say for 
himself. He may point out that it was at their own request 
(though at our expense) that the bishops had the law ascer- 
tained for them. Whereupon, they have "with one consent 
begun to make excuse " for not keeping a promise made in 
verbo sarcerdotii by the Primate of England, viz. that when 
once the law was made clear, they would not be wanting on 
their parts as the Ordinary administrators of that law. With 
twenty recorded vetoes staring him in the face, even Mr. 
Gedge will hardly pretend that the bishops have kept tJaat 
promise. Such, then, being the facts, we may consider Mr. 
Gedge's theory either from a political (or constitutional) 
standpoint, or from a purely ecclesiastical one. 

On the civil side, we have to remember that England is 
neither a Despotism nor an Oligarchy, but that every citizen 
shares in the legislative powers of the State. And with 
power comes its inseparable correlative, responsibility. 


On the ecclesiastical side, all '^Evangelicals" who desei've 
the name are witnesses for the right of the " Church/' as 
distinguished from the clergy, to take an active part in the 
government of its own affairs. They call to mind that 
whereas the heresies which desolated the Church emanated 
from ecclesiastics who were reputed " men of great learning 
and piety/' the defence of the Catholic faith rested again and 
again with the laity or with mere deacons like Athanasius, 

I know that Mr. Gedge won't heed anything that I say, 
but perhaps he will listen to the Eev. John Henry Newman, 
who, as the acknowledged leader of the Bishop of Lincoln's 
school, said : 

The Episcopate, wliose action was so prompt and concordant at 
Nicsea, on the rise of Arianism, did not, as a class or order of men, 
play a good part in the troubles consequent upon the Council ; and 
the laity did. The Catholic people, in the length and breadth of 
Christendom, were the obstinate champions of Catholic truth, and the 
bishops were not. This is a very remarkable fact, but there is a 
moral in it. Perhaps it was permitted, in order to impress upon the 
Church — at that very time passing out of her state of persecution to 
her long temporal ascendancy — the great Evangelical lesson, that not 
the wise and powerful, but the obscure, the unlearned, and the weak 
constitute her real strength. It was mainly by the faithful people 
that paganism was overthrown ; it was by the faithful people, under 
the lead of Athauasius and the Egyptian bishops, and in some places 
supported by their bishops or priests, that the worst of heresies was 
withstood and stamped out of the sacred territory.^ 

The laity have, then, it may be, some little share of com- 
mon-sense, of learning, and of that inspiration for which we 
pray in the opening collect of the Communion Office. If 
anybody could persuade us otherwise, it would be Mr. Sydney 
Gedge. But with the four Gospels in our hands, and the 
teaching of Church history to guide us, I for one cannot 
doubt that the laity are the " Ecclesia " of the LXX. and of 
the N.T., and that the " Voice of the Church " (so often 
talked about, but so seldom " heard ") is to be sought ulti- 
mately in the enlightened conscience of the educated 
Christian laity, guided by that Holy Spirit whose gifts are 
promised even to " secular " persons, and whose aid now, as 
of old, will not be wanting to the prayers of His faithful 

Henry Miller, 

Secretary, Church Association. 

^ Newman's " Arians," p. 445. 




(Reprinted from the " Church Intelligencer," for October, 1889.) 

The following ai-ticle, in reply to Mr. Gedge's further attack 
upon the Church Association (which appeared in the Ghurch- 
man for September), was refused insertion by the editor of 
that magazine before he had seen it. 

I am glad that Mr. Gedge has taken so much time to 
elaborate his reply to my criticism of his unexpected 
attack. One may feel quite sure that after three months 
of deliberation nothing has been omitted which the advice 
of friends, or the experience of a professional advocate 
could suggest. And the Rejoinder (though desultory, 
incoherent, and often irrelevant), is valuable as showing 
what constitutes the real weakness of certain "Evangelicals," 
and as throwing light upon the obscure causes of that 
prejudice with which these persons regard the action of 
the Church Association. 

Richard Baxter used to say, " Nobody trusts to common 
sense to make a pair of shoes." The wisdom of that 
aphorism is far-reaching. It is just because Mr. Gedge 
trusted to uninformed " common sense " for elaborating a 
theory which had no relation whatever to " the symbolism 
assigned to the usages hy the men who emploij them " 
(Churchman, p. 505), that he was led to the (false) assertion 
that the doctrines involved " are true," and " are part of the 
faith common to the Bishop and the prosecutors'' (p. 454). 
Whereas, in sad and sober earnest, the doctrines symbolized 
and intended to he symbolized are absolutely false and 
mischievous, and are denied even by Mr. Gedge. 

Mr. Gedge says in explanation, though Mr. Miller 
" does show that I am not so well acquainted as he is with 
the recondite meaning of some of the outward actions 
which form the subject of the prosecution " (p. 572), yet 
that Mr. Gedge's " veiy ignorance of the recondite meaning 
so plain to Mr. Miller" qualifies him the better to 
conduct " a practical investigation into the effect in the 
19th century of these ritual practices upon the minds of 
' men in the street' who have not had occasion to make 



tlioin selves professionally acquainted with ecclesiastical 
lore'' (p. 665). He complains that "Mr. Miller . . . 
enters into an historical inquiry to show that three hundred 
years ago other doctrines^ not true, Avere also symbolized." 

" Three hundred years ago " takes us back to the 
compilation of the Book of Common Prayer, and to the 
struggle of the Reformation period to throw off the 
eucharistic superstitions of Rome. Was it unreasonable to 
recur to that period when proposing to examine the 
meanino- of the reformed ritual whidi dates from and 
embodies the result of that struggle ? Has Mr. Gedge 
forg'otten that the Tractarian ' revival ' was not the intro- 
duction of any new doctrine of "the 10th century,'^ but 
was essentially a reproduction of pre-Reformation beliefs ? 
The ritual of the Bp. of Lincoln is professedly based upon 
an Ornaments-Rubric of ' three hundi-ed years ago,' about 
which the 'man in the street' knows no more than Baxter's 
amateur shoemaker did of the details of an unfamiliar 
craft. The revival of mediaeval doctrine notoriously 
preceded and gave rise to the restoration of Romish ritual. 
Dean Goode, Dr. Vaughan, Mr. Dimock, and Dr. Blakeney 
have shown not merely that the teaching common to Dr. 
Pusey, Archdeacon Denison, and Bishops Forbes, Hamilton, 
and King is identical with that of Harding* and Gardiner, but 
that every one of the arguments put forward by the later- 
theolog-ians has been borrowed from the Ang-lo-Roman 
controversialists of "three hundred years ago." The 
so-called " spiritual " presence "within the wafer Avas 
taught as strenuously by Bp. Gardiner as by Dr. Pusey ; 
and the only point of disagreement between them is as to 
the purely metaphysical question whether the unknown 
and unknowable ' substance ' of bread and wine continues 
to exist together tvith the miraculously reproduced 'sub- 
stance ' of the body and blood of Christ, which (as both 
these theologians " have received for to hold ") is present 
" under the forms of bread and wine " when reserved for 
worship in a tabernacle, or carried about in a procession, 
or eaten by unbelievers. 

Such being the case, Mr. Gedge's proposal to rely upon 
the instincts or first impressions of the " man in the 
street " in determining the meaning of professedly 
'' historic " revivals (from the most debased and corrupt 
period of our Church history) is less wise than Mr. Gedge 
appears to think it. 


The doubtful result of such an appeal derives illustration 
from a letter published in the City Press last year by the 
Churchwardens of St. Ethelburga's. These "ordinary 
p^ple " of the " nineteenth century " said, 

' " To fancy, as you do, that two yellow artificial liames smoking in 
the face of the sun, can be any fitting emblem of the Sun of Right- 
eousness, ov that their entire and complete separation typifies the 
unity of His person, only shows what folly Eitualists are capable of. 
That the candlesticks ' stand before the God of the whole earth,' in 
Key. xi.-4, you exphiiu to mean that He is ' really and truly present in 
the Sacrament of the Altar' — that is, joxw lights are thus burned to 
show that God is inside the wafer, and behind these burning wicks, to 
receive the adoration of all worshippers of the ' Host.' Pardon us if 
we say it would be idle to reason with a person capable of such super- 
stition. The scandal of seeing the immense revenues of this church 
diverted for your private maintenance as a non-working absentee for 
eleven years is, if possible, intensified by your gravely projDOunding in 
the name of religion such old wives' fables about 'altars ' and candle- 
sticks, the beggarly substitutes of Eome for a hidden Gospel, of which 
we admit an artificially darkened church, and a deliberate preference 
of artificial light to siuishine, is no inapt symbol." 

That I confess seems to me a more reasonable and natural 
inference to draw^ than the one which Mr. Gedge has 
imagined; and it actually occurred within the region of 
fact, whereas Mr. Gedge's "practical" investigation belongs 
toclondland. The verdict upon the "six points" of ritualism 
which would probably be given by any untutored ' man in 
the street/ if after reading his New Testament he were 
present at a Eitualistic High Mass, would not be very 
different from the summary in the last Annual Report of 
the Church Association, viz. : 

" Artificial light, and artificial smoke, and embroidered dresses, and 
muttered words, and artificial mystery having for its object to hide 
from the worshippers the exceeding simplicity of the ' unleavened ' 
bread or ' watered ' wine which they are taught to salute as the 
'Lamb of God,' taking away {pi'o tern.) 'the sins of the world,' viz. 
from mass to mass ! The ' Six Points ' of ritual, by the confession of 
friend and foe alike, mean just this. The ' altar-lights ' were brought 
in with the doctrine of transubstantiation, and were burned ' before the 
Sacrament ' to show that it is the ' light of the world.' Hence when 
the Wafer was carried about, the lights preceded ' it ; ' when the 
Wafer was removed from the ' altar,' the light was put out. So, too, 
with the ' Eastward position.' The mediatorial office of the ' sacrificer ' 
made it necessary for him to ' go-between ' his clients and the God 
whom he sought to appease on their behalf. Turning his face to it, 
he necessarily turned his back on the Church which he was teaching 
by an 'object-lesson' to worship 'it.' The 'Agnus Dei ' was a direct 
act of adoration to ' it.' The fumes of the censer enveloped ' it ' with 
artificial ' clouds and darkness.' And so with the rest." 

G8 * 


But Mr. Gedge extends liis appeal from ' Philip sober ' 
into the region of doctrine as well as into that of ritual. I 
referred him to ample documentary proof that both Bishop 
King and Viscount Halifax had publicly professed and 
avowed their belief of the very doctrines which Mr. Gedge 
says should be "resisted unto blood." Mr. Gedge avows 
that he has not read, and apparently he does not want to 
read any such inconvenient revelations. He says he does not 

" pretend to be acquainted with all their speeches and writings. If 
Bp. King does teach the six doctrines set out in Mr. Miller's 
pamphlet, he teaches what I believe to be false." 

What Mr. Gedge ' believes ' is immaterial to the question 
under discussion ; but what Bp. King publicly teaches is of 
vital importance as regards the ritual in which that teaching 
is embodied. And when I offered to Mr. Gedge a catena 
carefully collected from Bp. King's published writings, it is 
not even decent to proclaim that he ' does not pretend to 
be acquainted with' the evidence pertinent to a grave 
inquiry initiated by himself. Viscount Halifax has promptly 
repudiated the defence extemporized for him : though Mr. 
Gedge (remembering perhaps Mr. Weller senior's con- 
fidence in a "hallibi^') endeavoured to procure an acquittal 
for his client on the ground that in ritual symbolism we 
have nothing to do with "three hundred years ago." After 
thanking Mr. Gedge for his " very generous article/' Lord 
Halifax added, 

" Everyone knows that these observances are attacked on account 
of their connexion with doctrine, because they symbolize the identity in 
all essentials of our present Communion office in English with the old 
Communion office oi the English Church as it used to be said in Latin, 
and that they cannot be condemned by a competent spiritual authority 
without to that extent at least, and in popular estimation, affecting the 
claim of our present Eucharistic office to be ivhat the First Prayer Book 
of Edward VI. calls it, The Mass in English. The attack is on ritual, 
but the object struck at is the doctrine of the Real Presence and the 
Eucharistic sacrifice." 

He instructs his apologist, as a merely ' secular ' lawyer, 
that " The old constitutions, — that Mass shall not be said 
without two or at least one Light — are part of the old 
UNREPEALED Cauon Law." And with remorseless logic, 
pushing home to the heart of the Erastian position, he 
contends — 

" If the Church of England so separated herself from the past in the 
sixteenth century, that the presumption is against her having retained 
anything belonging to that past except what is specifically mentioned 


in some ex'istimi fonntdavy or rubric, then I wonlcl ask what claim has 
she to be the old Church of England at allP What right has she, 
except a Parliamentary one, to her endowments?"^ 

In Ms first article Mr. Gedge asserted tliat Lord Halifax 
" expressly limits the presence of Christ to the heart " in a 
sentence which, on the contrary, 'expressly' contrasted 
and distinguished betAveen the temporary and transient 
" coming to us under the forms of bread and wine" and so 
" giving Himself to us on the altars of His church " (which 
is supposed to happen at the precise moment when the so- 
called ''words of consecration" are pronounced, and the 
sacring bell is rung), with the totally different and subsequent 
fact of a " continued presence in the heart of his people " 
which the Church of Rome has always taught, and still 
teaches. Surely Mr. Gedge must have read in his time 
(though a busy attorney may be excused for forgetting 
much which does not immediately concern himself, and 
which he therefore describes as ' recondite,' — yet, since even 
Punch dealt with it, this ' lore ' must have come at some 
time or other within his ken — ) how Keble wrote 

" There present in the heart 
Nut in the hands." 
and how the 

"Dying swan by geese beset" 
subsequently changed this into 

" There present in the heart 
As in the hands " 

in order to express Viscount Halifax's Romish belief as to 
a " presence on the altar under the forms of bread and 
wine." Had Mr. Gedge remembered this, it would have 
saved him from joining the "man in the street" in 
mistaking for an " express limitation of the presence to the 
heart," that isolated sentence quoted by him from Lord 
Halifax (p. 456). 

The extract from our Annual Report which I pressed (in 
vain) upon Mr. Gedge' s attention shows that Viscount 
Halifax abhors and repudiates as heretical any attempt to 
" limit the presence of Christ to the heart." Speaking of 
masses for the dead, the President of the E.C.U. said 

"Are we anxious to make an o^crins,iov others he-sides ourselves? 
No single Eucharist can be celebrated anywliere without affecting the 
well-being of the whole Church, since it is the offering of the merits 
of Him who died not for a favoured few but for all. 

1 Churcli Times, p. 589, June 28th, 1889. 


"Do we desire to make atonement for past sin ? Here we may offer 
before the Father the blood of the Victim whose death has made a 
perfect expiation for the sins of the whole world. 

" Are we troubled about those who in the shadow of death are await- 
ing the judgment ? The blood of the Sacrifice reaches down to the 
prisoners of hope, and the dead as they are made to possess their old 
sins in the darkness of the grave, thank us as we offer for them the 
Sacrifice which restores to light and immortality.'^ (" The Priesthood 
of the Laity." A paper read hy the Hon. C. L. Wood, President of 
the English Church Union, at the \Sth Anniversary of the C.B.S., 

I select that passage because it explains wliy"]\Ir. G-edge 
omitted the pertinent words " given to us " from his 
inaccurate quotation of the Catechism-definition of a sacra- 
ment (p. 456).'^ 

Mr. Gedge says " What I asserted was that the doctrines 
now symbolised were, so far as I could ascertain, so and so, 
and that these doctrines were true." The words " so far 
as I could ascertain" are the key of the jDOsition. They 
mean so far as a ' man in the street ' who refuses to read 
the evidence when put before him, ' could ' ascertain. I 
showed by the direct testimony of Dr. Pusey on the one 
hand, and of Canon Selwyn on the other, that the 'East- 
ward Position^ meant 

1. Priestly mediation. 

2. Adoration before the Host. 

3. Sacrifice. 

Mr. Gedge replies, — But I, and the ' man in the street ' 
don't know this, and we don't want to know it. Mr. Gedge, 
however, professes acquaintance with the troubles of the 
C. M. S., with their Kitualistic vice-president, the Bp. of 
Colombo. If so, he can hardly be ignorant how that 
' successor of the Apostles ' insists that 

" ' The eastward position is of the highest value as an exponent of 
doctrine.' And again, in another letter to the C. M. S. — ' Since there is 
danger that this aspect of the rite, — its sacrificial aspect, — should be 
forgotten among us, the outward rite which most clearly symbolizes it 
seems to be in itself desirable.' "f 

How comes it then that under such guidance, Mr. Gedge 
still brings himself to assert (p. 454) that " so far as he 
has been able to ascertain it is not intended to teach any 
particular doctrine." 

Is it not passing strange that Mr. Gedge should seriously 

* See " The Misprinted Catechism," published by J. F. Shaw ctCo. Price 
One Penny. 

t Proceedings of the Church Missionary Society, 1878-9, pp. lOG, 109. 


set up as a standard to be accepted by others his own care- 
fully preserved ignorance of what Bp. King, and Viscount 
Halifax have actually taught, his own admitted ignorance of 
what the inculpated ritual was devised to express much more 
than ''three hundred years ago/' and his own alleged ignor- 
ance of "any particular doctrine involved in the Eastward 
Position " restricted as that position is now-a-days to the 
neighbourhood of the 'altar/ and independent as it is of 
any '' cumulative/ or ' combined ' grouping with other rites 
for its heretical associations ? 

Mr. Gedge says : " The object of the prosecution is 
stated by Mr. Miller himself to be to establish the falsehood 
of six doctrines which he specifies." That is not so. The 
Mass ritual relates primarily to the supposed reproduction 
of the Object of worship within certain pieces of consecrated 
matter : the eastward position, lights " before the sacra- 
ment," censing the host, and "ablutions," each relates 
primarily to this which is not one of the " six " doctrines 
enumerated. The question of " idolatry " in the Mass turns 
also upon this point, as Bishops AndreAves, Taylor, Stilling- 
fleet, and other ' Anglo-Catholics ' long ago demonstrated ; 
yet that also was not among the " six." And the readers 
of the Churcliman will see, on turning back to page 510, 
that in that part of my article Avhich mentions the " six,^* 
I had avowedly " left the details of ritual observance," and 
had gone on to discuss the importance of the issues at stake 
between rival parties in the Established Church, without 
reference to ritual. 

Moreover, so far from imagining that litigation can test 
the ' falsehood ' of any doctrine, I have publicly and recently 
repudiated that very belief. In the Record of January 25, 
1889, I adopted the languago of our official organ, the 
Church Intelligencer — 

" Litif^ation in courts does not relate to, and cannot possibly deter- 
mine the nature and limits of revealed and supernatural truth ; but 
relates solely to the administration of justice between man and man, 
to the fulfilment of contracts, and to the interpretation of humanly 
devised formularies intended to fix and safeguard the common agree- 
ment entered into by the members of the same Society; it is monstrous, 
therefore, that persons in holy orders should claim a monopoly of 
insight to tho exclusion of ' secular' persons who possess legal training, 
and a habit of impartial employment of that moral reason with wliich 
the common Fatlier has endowed ' secular ' persons not less than 
professional and stipendiary theologians. Human courts administering 
human law by the ajjplication of human experience to human needs, 
are the o)ily possihle tribunals to which, in this life. Christians can 


resort to obtain redress ; and the very claim to exemption on the part 
of one order of men proves their own exceptional unfitness for such 

Mr, Gedge's mind seems to be in a fog on this subject. 
He quotes an anonymous correspondent of tbe Record — 
"No body of earnest men, strongly imbued with what 
seem to them vital principles, can ever be put down by 
external force ; partly also, because their spiritual instinct 
rebels against the authority of secular courts in matters 
spiritual." Mr. Gredge calls this (p. 667) ^a respectable 
objection,' but adds — 

" Before accepting the last paragraph I must have a definition of 
the word ' spiritual.' The Eitualist would perhaps define it by 
' clerical.' To my mind converted men, lay or cleric, are spiritual ; 
unconverted men, though ordained or even consecrated, are not. The 
rest of the paragraph fairly represents my own views." 

With this proviso, then, it seems we are to understand 
that Mr. Gedge's " spiritual instinct " rebels against the 
authority of " secular courts in matters spiritual " ; and the 
same pneumatic Psyche insists upon every such trial being 
conducted by converted men. So far good : but then, who 
is to be judge of the conversion of these ideal Judges ? 
Mr. Gedge and the " man in the street " may deem them- 
selves sufficient for these things ; but, meantime, don't let 
them impute to us the absurd notion that Ritualists are to 
be " put down by force." Like Buddhists and Papists, 
the Ritualists ought to be absolutely free to worship their 
God in any way which their individual conscience may 
prescribe. Nevertheless, the endowments and freeholds of 
an established Protestant Church are to be protected by 
" secular " law from any fraudulent appropriation by 
Ritualists, such as is now going on wholesale by the con- 
nivance of the bishops. We say — 

" If the Church of England may permit the teaching of diametrically 
opposed beliefs as to the Object of worship, the means of Atone- 
ment, and the divinely appointed channel for the ' remission of sins,' 
how long will the Nation think it decent to preserve a system so 
immoral ?" 

To that question Mr. Gedge should address himself, if 
he has anything pertinent to say. 

Instead of doing this, Mr. Gedge tries to excite odium 
by making the C.A. responsible for anything and 
everything which he dislikes in the correspondence 
columns of the English Churchman, a paper over which 


we liave no more control than over tlio Churchman itself. 
I challen^-cd his orig-inal statement that " counter Associa- 
tions had been formed all over England" and asked, 
Where are they ? What have they done ? In reply, he 
assumes that the phrase " Mr. Gedge and his friends " 
means all " those evangelicals who have not joined the 
C.A./' and boasts " We have doubled the income and work 
of the C.M.S.," "We have also founded the two theological 
halls " — Wycliffe and Ridley. As a fact, I find in the 
printed list of subscribers to the Theological Halls, issued 
in 1880, just four years after the project was started, that 
as regards the amount contributed, and the number and 
weight of names, the Church Association men are well 
to the front. Such comparisons are in questionable taste, 
but it is due to our friends that Mr. Gedge's mis-statements 
should not pass without correction. Even had it been 
otherwise, it would have been a veritable " building the 
sepulchres of the Prophets " to invoke in apology for illegal 
ritual the name of Ridley, who himself transposed the 
Agnus Dei in order to prevent any ritual adoration of the 
newly consecrated host, and who himself condemned the 
ritual practices of " three hundred years ago,'' now revived 
by Bp. King, as a " counterfeiting of the Popish Mass.'' 

The proposal to take every one who has not joined the 
C.A. to be an honorary member of an imaginary *' counter 
association," betrays a loose method of dealing with facts. 
It would be just as permissible to say that every Conser- 
vative who has not joined the Primrose League has '^formed 
counter-associations all over England." None of the 
institutions named by Mr. Gedge is, or professes to be, a 
''counter-association to the C.A.", which was the thing to 
be proved. None of them have the Ritualistic or Roman 
controversy for their primary object. None of them come, 
therefore, within the legitimate scope of the present dis- 

The Church Missionary Society controversy I do not 
profess to understand, and it would be impertinent in 
me to enter upon it. I can only testify that the subject 
has never been so much as mooted in the council chamber 
of the Church Association, and that its members, as such, 
have no policy whatever as respects the administration of 
the C.M.S. The statement of Mr. Gedge that any " leading 
members of the C.A." have ever attempted to " break up 
the C.M.S." is, to say the least, a complete misapprehension. 


The C.M.S. has no warmer friends than the members of 
the Church Association. 

As to the surplice being exclusively the legal dress of the 
preacher, Mr. Gedge suggests — 

" An attempt has been made to get out of tliis decision by tbose 
Church Association men who do not like it, by a contention that 
preaching is not a ministration ; but they very wisely abstained from 
submitting this question to the decision of a court of law." 

Does he mean that we might have prosecuted our own 
members for complying with what we ourselves believe to 
be perfectly legal ? The late Dean McNeile and the late 
Canon James Bardsley publicly challenged a prosecution, and 
promised not to interpose any legal obstacles such as those 
behind which Mr. Bennett and Archdeacon Denison carefully 
sheltered themselves; but beyond publishing that challenge 
to all whom it might concern, we assuredly had no duty 
in this matter. The distinction between ' ministration ' 
and preaching had been demonstrated both on legal and 
historical grounds by Archdeacon Harrison and by Canon 
Kobertson, the historian, long before the Church Association 
was heard of. In the last century the same distinction in law 
was recognised by Archdeacon Sharp. These writers were 
of the very first rank as authorities, and not one of them 
was a ' Low ' Churchman. If, as seems probable, Mr. Gedge 
knows nothing of these the most copious and learned writers 
on the subject, he might, nevertheless, as a practising 
attorney have been expected to recognise that no court 
could possibly decide a question which was not before it, as 
to which no argument was addressed to it, and which was in 
no way included in the articles of charge against the defen- 
dant. Anyhow, the distinction between preaching and 
'ministration' is recognised by the Brawling Act of 1860, 
as well as by legal decisions {Gope v. Barber, L.R., C.P. 
vii.-401.) Yet Mr. Gedge, more suo, prefers to beg the 

On another point, howevei', Mr. Gedge has, at first sight, 
more reason to complain. He says that he described the 
charge against Bp. King as one of "cleansing the chalice 
with wine and water, and drinking the wine and water in the 
face of the congregation,^' and that I distorted this into a 
further charge of pouring water over his fingers before 
drinking it. But Mr. Gedge did not state accurately what 
Bp. King's own Counsel describe as follows — 

"8. After the Blessing the remains of the consecrated elements 


were, as far as rotdcl so he, reverently eaten and drunk, and thex one 
of the assistant priests, witli his sanction, poured water into the paten 
and wine and water into the chalice, and the contents of the paten and 
the chalice were then reverently consumed by the Bishop, and thus 
the remains of that which was consecrated were completely and 
reverently eaten and drunk in accordance with the rubric." 

Now anybody who will compare tliis with the Rubric in 
the Prayer Book will see that obedience to its requirements 
was satisfied by the first two lines of the above statement ; 
and that what follows is in excess both of the Rubric and of 
Mr. Gedge's description. More than this^ if Mr. Gedge will 
no longer trust to the impressions of the ''man in the 
street/^ but will look at the published writings of recognised 
Ritualistic authorities, he will find that the careful washing 
of the fingers on the ground alleged is solemnly inculcated. 
Nay more, the sucking of the fingers is further advocated. 

The Directorium Anglicanum says — 

" The Epistoler taking the water-cruet into his right hand, pours 
some water into the wine over the fingers of the priest, i.e., so that the 
first finger and thumb of each hand might be within the chalice, and thus 
washed as well as the cup with wine and water poured over them." — 
(2nd edit., p. 71 and footnote.) 

In a footnote is quoted from the Sarum Missal, " ne 
aliquEe reliquitB corporis vel sanguinis remaneant in 

For obvious reasons, it would be difficult to prove in a ''crim- 
inal " suit this prescribed washing of the fingers " within " 
the chalice : but it must not be assumed that the " ablutions " 
at Lincoln do not follow the Sarum Use in a matter in which 
it is supported by the " unrepealed Canon Law " as well as 
by modern Roman Catholic practice. (See Maskell's 
Ancient Liturgy of the Church of England, pp. 130, 135, 
161, &c.) 

The Rev. T. W. Perry, the Royal Commissioner on 
Ritual, employed by the E.C.U. as their foremost expert to 
draft their published " Case for the opinion of Counsel," 
quotes also Archbishop Langton's Constitutions (of 1222) 
and Archbishop Langham's (a.d. 1367) as follows — 

"A priest may not celebrate Mass twice a day, unless the necessity 
be urgent. When he does, let nothing be poured into the chalice after 
the receiving the Blood at the first celebration ; but let the least drops 
be diligently supped out of the chalice, and the fingers sucked or 
licked witii the tongue, and washed, and the washings to be kept in a 
clean vessel to be had for this purpose ; which washings are to be 
drunk after the celebration." 


Mr, Perry comments on tliis in a parallel column^ "All 
these laivs are still in force, and might be a most useful and 
very practical guide to the clergy of the Church of England, 
seeing that no directions upon the points mentioned in them, 
are given in the Prayer Book.'^ The rinsing water is not 
supposed to be transubstantiated; consequently to drink any 
of it before the second celebration would be to break the 
priest's fast. Mr. Perry further defends the Constitution 
of Archbishop Edmund (a.d. 1326) for Communion of the 

" And let him have a silver or tin vessel, always to carry with liim 
to the sick, appropriated for that special purpose, that is for givino- 
the washings of his fingers to be drunk by the sick man after the 
taking of the Eucharist." — {Jerrys Latcful Church Ornaments, pp. 
478, 481.) 

Mr. Perry would adopt Mr. Gedge's words, and say 
this "only accentuates the doctrine taught by the 
rubric." Had Mr. Gedge done us the honour to read our 
Church Association pamphlet on the " Reservation of the 
host," he would have learned that the real object of the 
rubrical direction added in 1662 was not to secure any 
ritual washings of the cup and the platter, but to prevent 
any reservation of the host under pretence of too large a 
quantity having been consecrated. But then, as we have 
seen, Mr. Gedge eschews even penny tracts as being " re- 
condite " and " lore " because they might interfere with the 
free publication of his opinions on subjects to which " the 
man in the street" has paid no attention. Let me add two 
more authorities to show what is the " Catholic tradition." 

" The server pours first a few drops of wine, then a larger quantity 
of water over his fingers into the chalice. The priest having wiped his 
fingers, then drinks the ablution." — {Ritual Reason Why, p. 141.) 

" Whenever the priest has to replace the chalice on the altar, he 
must cover it, but must be careful not to place the pall on the rim 
where it is wet with the Blessed Sacrament, but first remove any 
portion of it that may be there with his lips ; he may, if necessary, 
also use his forefinger, placing it afterwards in his mouth. He must 
be careful not to allow the Precious Blood to run down the outside of 
the chalice. He ought to communicate the people, if possible from 
one part only of the lip of the chalice, so as to avoid wetting it all 
round." — {Aids to reverently celebrating. 1889. Grifiith, Farran & Co.) 

But your readers have now had enough of this sort of 
rubrical (?) " reverence." 

Lastly, in dealing with Mr. Bennett's case, Mr. Gedge says 


fhat I rest the wortlilessness of Sir R. Phillimore's judgment 
upon the fact that he ^ was brother-in-law of Adn. Denison/ 
No moderately careful reader of my article could fall into 
that error. What I referred to was the notorious fact that 
Sir R. Phillimore's Judgment contained spurious quotations 
attributed to ' Overal/ and ' Poynet/ and garbled quotations 
from Ridley, Jewel, Bramhall, Jeremy Taylor, and Tillotson. 
Even the Thirty-nine Articles Avere misquoted : so also was 
the Six Articles Act, and this list of gross blunders (by no 
means an exhaustive* one) derives additional importance 
from the fact which I mentioned — but which Mr. Gedge 
suppresses — viz. that this judgment was " in substance the 
very same catena compiled [for Sir R. Phillimore as counsel] 
for Denison's defence, which had been proved twenty years 
before, by Dean Goode, to consist of downright misquota- 
tions." Those who have read the Life of Bp. Wilberforce 
(ii. 325) will remember how Sir R. Phillimore was closeted 
with Mr. Gladstone and the Bishop of Oxford to concoct 
measures for the defence of Denison; and those who 
remember the active part Mr. Gladstone took in reference to 
the condemnation of Messrs. Oakley, Ward, Newman, and Bp. 
Forbes Avill recognise the pertinence of the fact that it was 
the same J\h\ Gladstone who '^pitchforked two brand new 
judges into the Privy Council Avithin a week of the trial." 
The Crown (by 3 and 4 Wm. IV. c. 41) can only appoint 
two, beside the ex-qfficio members, and one of these 
two gentlemen, who had never sat as a judge in any 
court, had the merit of being the editor of the Guardian 
noAvspaper which then supported both Denison and Mr. 
Gladstone through thick and thin, and he Avas also a 
member of that Committee of the "London Union" 
of 1849, of Avhich Viscount Campden, Viscount Fielding, 
the Rev. W. Dodsworth, the Rev. W. Maskell, Mr. John 
Simeon, m.p., Mr. F. R. Wegg-Prosser, m.p., and other 
well-knoAvn seceders to Rome were also members. f When 
it is remembered that the present Marquis of Ripon Avas 
then President of the Council, and that Lord Aberdeen 
(Avho acted under the influence of Bp. Wilberforce and Mr. 
Gladstone in Church matters) " in translating Lord Auck- 

* For a more complete list see " Is Lord Penzance fit to succeed Sir E. 
Phillimore?" published by Marlborough. Price One Penny. 
j See Life of Henry Hoare, by the Rev. J. B. Sweet, p. 107. 


land, STIPULATED that he should neither persecute Mr. Bennett, 
nor prosecute Adn.Denison^' {Life of Wllherforce,i\. 240) the 
pertinence of my remark, which, after all, merely adopted a 
statement made by the GJnorch Times, must be evident even 
to the " man in the street." 

Mr. Gedge thinks I have no right to claim a verdict of 
' Not Proven^ against Mr. Bennett. But the language of the 
Judges is decisive. 

" Upon the whole, their lordsliips, not without doubts and division 
of opinions, have come to the conclusion that this charge is not so 
clearly made out as the rules which govern penal proceedings requii'e. 
Mr. Bennett is entitled to the benefit of any doubt that may exist. 
His language has been rash, but as it appears to the majoritj'' of their 
lordships that his words can be so construed as not to be plainly 
repugnant to the two passages articled against them, their lordships 
will give him the benefit of the doubt that has been raised . . . Even 
in their maturer form his words are rash and ill-judged, and are 
perilously near a violation of the law. But the Committee have not 
allowed any feeling of disapproval to interfere with the real duty 
before them, to decide whether the language of the respondent was 
so plainly repugnant to the Articles and formularies as to call for 
judicial condemnation ; and, as these proceedings are highly penal, to 
construe in his favour every reasonable doubt." (Stephens' Keport, 
pp. 303, 307.) 

Apart from this, I hold that the Bennett Judgment cannot 
be held conclusive as to the doctrine of the English Church 
for two plain reasons. 

1st. Because the XXIXth Article was expressly devised 
to furnish the touchstone of eucharistic error. Yet on 
technical grounds the " reception by the wicked " was 
struck out from the articles of charge by Sir E. Phillimore, 
although at that very moment Mr. Bennett was selling at his 
" Church Depository " in the town of Frome, a work 
containing the following passage : — 

"That the body and blood of Christ, thus really present, are 
therein and thereby given to and received by all, both in respect of 
those who eat and drink worthily, and in respect of those who eat and 
drinh unworthily!' [!] 

2ndly. Because Mr. Gladstone's unprecedented inter- 
ference only four days before the trial to change the 
composition of the court robbed its divided utterances of 
that moral weight which would otherwise attach to the 
findings of the supreme court of appeal. 

Even the '^ man in the street '' (or British Philistine), 
must see that this was a very dilferent thing from a 


Parnellite grumble about '^ the family relationship of one 
judge, and the recent elevation to the Bench of two others/' 
as Mr. (xedge ingeniously puts it. For my part, I deplore 
that any Evangelical should think it consistent with his 
duty to publish at such a crisis an estimate of the Bennett 
Judgment which endorses the most boastful claims of the 
Church Times. Sir R. Phillimore himself was more candid 
in this matter than Mr. Sydney Gedge. He says: — 

"The judgment of the Court of Arches contained two propositions : 
first, the Judge said, 'I say that the objective, actual, and real presence, 
or presence external to the act of the communicant, appears to me 
to be the doctrine which the formularies of our Church, duly considered 
and construed so as to be harmonious, intended to maintain.' This 
proposition was not adopted by the Judicial Committee of the Privy 
Council." (Eccl. Law, i. Add. p. Ixx.) 

No one could gather so much as a hint of this from 
Mr. Gedge's version. 

And this has a direct bearing upon another fallacy 
emitted by Mr. Gedge, viz. that if false doctrine be not 
illegal, ritual which is in itself illegal must be suffered to pass 
unchallenged because it embodies that false doctrine. But 
the judgment in Shepi^ard v. Bennett, which he has himself 
invoked, held that — 

" In the public or common prayers and devotional offices of the 
Church all her members are expected and entitled to join ; it is 
necessary, therefore, that such forms of worship as are prescribed by 
authority for general use should embody those beliefs only which are 
assumed to be generally held by the members of the Church. . . . 
If the Minister be allowed to introduce at his own will variations in 
the rites and ceremonies that seem to him to interpret the doctrine of 
the service in a particular direction, the service ceases to be what it 
was meant to be, common ground on which all Church people may 

Bp. Thirlwall in his charge, 1872, lays down the same 
principle ; and even Bp. S. Wilberforce said, " It is not 
only that the man who does it advances his views as a 
teacher of the Church, but taking advantage of his position 
to make manual alterations in the services, he makes all 
the congregation who acquiesce in these alterations parties 
with him in his particular views." 

Bp. Wilberforce Avas no " C. A. man," but he had at any 
rate the honesty to eschew the more recent episcopal device 
of allowing Mass and Holy Communion to be celebrated 
side by side. "Tell us not . . . that ye will read our 
Scriptures, if we will listen to your traditions ; that if ye 


may have Mass hy permission, we shall have a Communion 
with good leave and liking. . . . He cannot love the Lord 
Jesus witli his heart, which lendeth one ear to his Apostles 
and another to False Apostles ; which can brook to see a 
mingle-mangle of religion and superstition, Ministers and 
•massing -priests." 

The writer of that sentence was not a " man in the 
street -," and, as Mr. Gedge will perhaps object, Richard 
Hooker was "three hundred years ago.'' Nevertheless, 
sit anima mea cum illo. 

Henky Miller, 

Secretary, Church Association. 

To be obtained at tlie office of the Church Association, 14, Buclcingham Street, Strand, 
London, at the price of 2d each, or 12« per 100. 
4th Thousand.] 



Ititrkkl Cnmmittet of tijc 1|ribg Council 

I YER since the Ridsdale Judgment endorsed the 

decision in Hehhert v. Purchas, viz., that the 

Advertisements of Q. Elizabeth (issued in 1566) 

vrere a legal "taking order" under the proviso 

of the Act of Uniformity (1 Eliz. c. 2), attempts 

to disparage that ruling have been made by Dr. 

Littledale and by Mr. Jas. Parker. So many of 

the clergy, including some bishops, have been deceived by their 

unjust aspersions, that it has been found necessary to expose 

from time to time the methods by which it is sought to 

" put darkness for light, and bitter for sweet." Dr. Littledale's 

fallacies were accordingly exhibited in " The Advertisements 

of Queen Elizabeth,"* and Mr. James Parker's in the Chukch 

Lntelligencer, Vols. iii.-102, 114, 128; v.-12 ; vi.-78. 

But Mr. Jas. Parker has now launched a fresh discovery 

of his, viz., that the Signatories to the Advertisements were not 

" Commissioners under the Great Seal for causes ecclesiastical." 

In the Guardian of July 17th he puts the matter thus : 

"All the contemporary printed copies (and it may be added all 
reprints afterwards), have the signatures very clearly thus : — 
' Agreed upon and subscribed by — 


' Edmundus Londiniensis, I Commissioners 

'EiCHARDUs Eliensis, I in Causes 

'Edmundus Eoffensis, r Ecclesiastical 
'EoBERTUs WiNTONiENSis, with othcrs.' 


1 Published by J. F. Shaw. Price One Penny. 
No. CVII,] 


Now tlie warrant for appointing the Commission for Causes 
^Ecclesiastical imder the Great Seal can easily be referred to (by 
those who have not an opportunity of seeing the original in the 
Eecord-office), in Cardwell's Documentary Annals (ed. 1839, p. 223 ; 
ed. 1844, p. 255), and it will be seen that Matthew Parker and 
Edmund Grindal, of London, were appointed; bixt neither Eichard 
Cox, of Ely, Edmund Guest, of Eochester, Eobert Home, of Win- 
chester, nor Nicholas Bullingham, of Lincoln, were appointed on tliat 
Commission in 1559, nor is there the slightest evidence, or trace of 
evidence, of all or any one of these four having been appointed after- 
wards. . . . The taking of oixler by Commissioners must be, to be 
valid, by Commissioners appointed under the Great Seal. The authors 
of the Judgment could not write ' also with the advice of the Com- 
missioners appointed under the Great Seal of England for causes 
ecclesiastical,' because they knew that four out of the six Com- 
missioners in question were not so. They were obliged to leave the 
words out. In any ordinary controversy were such a process resorted 
to one writer would accuse the other of garbling. I do not know what 
term to apply when I see it done in a report of a Judicial Committee 
of the Privy Council." 

Mr. Parker emphasises the seriousness of his charge, on this 

■wise : 

" But attentive readers will observe that the five Bishops of his 
province are bracketed with the Archbishop. The bracket exists in 
all the known copies, and the Archbishop is always included with the 

What stronger accusation of stupidity, bad faith, and dis- 
honesty on the part of the Privy Council could be alleged than 
in this formal indictment ? Those who are interested (and who 
is not ?) in the reputation of our great English Judges will be 
relieved at finding that it is only Mr. Jas. Parker who has 
■" garbled " (to use his own elegant phrase) the evidence upon 
-which their judgment is asked. 

In the first place, he has chosen to give the signatures as 
printed by Cardwell, who (like Wilkins) professes to take the 
text of Hearne for his giiide. But neither Hearne in 1717, nor 
any one of the original editions, gives the signatures as printed 
by Cardwell in his Documentary Annals. Mr. Jas. Parker has 
examined seven copies (belonging to at least five separate 
editions) now existing in the British Museum, for he has 
published an account of them in his " Letter to Lord Selborne," 
p. 66. There is also in the B. M. an eighth copy (besides 
two old reprints "5175. b" and "3406. ^. 13") which Mr. 
Parker overlooked, viz. " T. ^~-.'" Not one of these gives 
the signatures as Mr. Jas. Parker prints them. Why then docs 


Mr. Jas. Parker prefer an inaccurate reprint of 1839 to tiiij 
original editions with which he is familiar ? Even Sparrow's 
reprint in 1G61 avoided this blunder upon which Mr. Jas. 
Parker bases his outrageous charge against the Privy Council. 
In the un- " garbled " copies the signatures are printed thus : 
" Agreed upon and subscribed by 

JllaU/iceus Cantuariensis, ~\ 

E'linoudus Londoniensls, (^ Commissioners iu Causes 

Richardus JSlieiisis, L Ecclesiastical. 

Edmondus Roffensis. J 

Robertas Wintonieitsis. 

Nicola us Tjincolniensi s. 

With others." 
Here it will be seen that only the first four bishops are 
formally designated " Commissionei's in causes ecclesiastical." 
The following Ro3^al Commission by Letters Patent which is 
printed noAV for the first time, was several years prior in date to 
the issue of the Advertisements of 1566, and in it the names of 
all the four are duly found in spite of Mr. Jas. Parker's confident 
assurance that there is not a " trace of evidence' of ' any one of 
these four having been appointed afterwards." Yet that 
" evidence " was directly under Mr. Parker's nose, being 
regularly enrolled and indexed at the Record Office. Nobody 
before Mr. Jas. Parker ever hinted a doubt that the Signatories 
were Commissioners. The Queen in her letter of January 25, 
1565, to the Ai-chbishop, had required him " being the Metro- 
politan " to " confer with the bishops your brethren iiamely 
such as be in Commission for causes ecclesiastical " [Parker Corr. 
p. 225] : and the draft articles were described accordingly as 
"subscribed by the bishops conferers " [P. Corr. 234]. The 
Archbishop mentions his " sitting in Commission with Doctor 
Lewes, Mr. Osboi-ne, and Dr. Drurie " [P. Corr. p. 277], during 
the very first week of the cnfoi"ceraent of the new Orders, when 
as he told Cecil — "my Lord of London [Grindal] and I dis- 
missed them with our Advertisements." Though not one of 
these three Commissioners was named in the Commission of 1559, 
every one of them is found in the subsequent Commission of 
1562 printed below. Grindal, whom even Mr. Parker admits to 
have been a Commissioner, expressly described the Advertise- 
ments as " nuide by some of the Queen's Commissioners." 

69 * 


[Strype's Life of Parker, i-319.] And Abp. Parker writing 
about them to the Prime Minister in 1573, said, " Order laatli 
been taken publicly this seven years by Commissioners, accord- 
ing to tlie Statute." [P. Corr. p. 450.] 

One of the earliest Puritan attacks upon the Advertisem.ents 
of Elizabeth was "An Abstract of certain Acts of Parliament" 
published in 1583, which at p. 210 called them "Advertisements 
published in the 7th year of her Grace's reign, and subscribed 
with the hands of one archbishop and five bishops, her 
Highness' Eccl. Commissioners." To this attack "An Answer " 
was published in 1584 by Richard Cosin who had been 
successively Chancellor of Worcester, Vicar General, and Dean 
of the Arches, and whom Fuller designates " one of the greatest 
civilians which our age or nation hath produced." At p. 2 of 
the preface to this work Cosin complains of the Puritans for 
" objecting breach of law also unto those grave fathers, whom 
her Majesty hath put in authority, for reducing others to 
conformitie of her laws ecclesiastical," and he repeatedly (pp. 67, 
74, 115, 130) recognises the Advertisements as having Her 
Majesty's authority. Sparke, who was ordained in 1573, 
published in 1607 his " Brotherly persuasion to unitie " dedicated 
to King James, in which he said (p. 21) "Her Majesty by virtue of 
the said statute, with the consent of the archbishop and High 
Commissioners" issued the Advts. Heylin in 1661 said "the 
Queen thought fit to make a further signification of her royal 
pleasure . . legally declared by her Commissioners for causes 
ecclesiastical, according to the acts and statutes made in that 
behalf." [Hist. Ref. ii.-408.] Bennet, in 1708, in his "Para- 
phrase" (p. 5) said " She did then, with the advice of her ecclesi- 
astical Commissioners, particularly the then Metropolitan, Dr. 
Matthew Pai-ker, publish certain Advertisements." Strype 
(upon whose authority Mr. Jas. Parker builds, when it suits his 
immediate purpose) testifies that in 1561 Abp. Parker " had an 
assessus of other bishops with him at Lambhith, for his assist- 
ance, by special Commission from the Queen, as it seems, 
according to a late Act of Parliament"; and again "the Abp. 
of Canterbury, with Thomas Abp. of York, the Bishops of 
London and Ely, and some others of the EccL Commission were 
now sitting at Lambeth." [Strype's Parker, pp. 181, 194.] 

Accorclmg to Wilkins (iv.-246), the Bishops of Eh/, Lincoln 
and Wiuchester were addressed by Sampson and Humj)hrey 
as being on the Ecclesiastical Commission which enforced the 
Advertisements. Wilkins copies this from Strype, and we know 
that the Bp. of Winchester (Horn) Avas on the High Commission 
in 1571, 1572, and 1573, as were Bps. Cox and Bullinghnm in 
1571. [Parker Corr. 72, 370, 382, 383, 433. cf. S. P. Dom. 
Eliz. ] 565, No. 64, p. 253.] We know also that fresh names were 
added from time to time to the original Commissioners, so 
that the mere fact of the disappearance, or non-discovery of any 
intermediate commissions is no proof that men whose names 
were published in 1566 as " Commissioners in causes Ecclesias- 
tical " were not such, although their names did not occur in the 
older Commission of 1559. Yet that is the pretext put forward 
in the Guardian for accusing Lord Selborne and the rest of Her 
Majesty's Judges of what "in any ordinary controversy" 
Mr. Jas. Parker would describe as " garbling." It must not, 
however, be assumed that when the Advertisements were 
actually published in 1566, Bishops Horn and Bolingham had 
not been added to the High Commission Court ; though on that 
point we have no evidence one way or other. It is enough 
that, as the following document proves, the four men whose 
names are bracketed, possessed that qualification at the time 
when as a Quorum of the Royal Commissioners they signed 
the Advertisements of Q. Elizabeth. 

The numbering of the sections, it should be mentioned, does 
not exist in the original, but is added merely to facilitate com- 
parison with the Commission of 1559, as printed by Cardwell. 

* * 

The Queen'' s warrant for the Court of High Commission in 

causes Ecclesiastical. 

Patent Roll. 4 Eliz. Part 3. 

Elizabeth &c. To our trustie and Welbeloued the moste Comisd 
Reuent f father in god Mathewe Archebusshop of Cauntei'bur}- Matheo 
Primate and Metropolitane of all England the Reuent f father in Cautuar 
god Edmund Busshop of London Richarde Busshop of Elie Archie p 
Edmunde Busshop of Rochester And to our right trustie and ^ ^t ad 
Welbeloued Counsellors ffrauncys Knolles our Vicechamt)layne puniaud 
Ambrose Cave Chauncello'^ of our Duchy Will^^mPetre Cliauncello'' [n/c] 
of thordcr of the Gartier knightf And to our trusty and Wei- hmoi 

psonas beloued Antony Coke and Thomas Smith knightf Walter Hacldon 
qui sunt and Thomas Sackford Masters of the request^ Willf^m Chester 

repug- and Will^m Garret knightf Randot Cholmeley and John Sowth- 
nanT; cote Serieantf at the Lawe Alexander Nowell Deane of Powles 
diuin Gabriel Goodman Deane of Westm Gil^bt Gei^rarde Esqiiier our 
li'^uic Attoi-ney GeSall Ro'bte Nowell Attorney of our Courte of Wardes 
and lyveries Richard Ousley Gierke of our Duchy Peter Osboui-ne 
one of the Remembrance of our Exchequier Dauyd Lewes Judge 
of our Highe Courte of the Admyraltie Robte Weston Deane of 
the Arches Thomas Huyck Chauncello'' to the Bysshop of London 
Masters of our Courte of Chauncy Thomas Yale Chauncello'^ to 
the Archebusshop of Caunterbury Will^m Drury C emissary of 
the ffaculties Doctors of the Lawe and Thomas Wattes^ Arche- 
(ii.) deacon of Middelsex,^-'' greating. Whereas in our Parliament 
holden at Westm the xxv*^^ day of January in the firste yere 
of our reigne and there contynued and kepte vntill the viij*^ 
daie of Maye then next followinge amongest other things there 
was two Actf and Statutes made and establisshed the one 
entituled An Acte for the vnyformytie of comon prayer and 
sluice of the Churche and administ*con of the Sacramentf and 
the other entituled An Acte restoringe to the Crowne the 
Auncyent iurisdiccon ou thestate ecciiasticall and spuall and 
abolysshinge all forrayne power repugnante to the same, as by 
the same seuall actf more at lardge dothe appeare And whereas 
dyuse sedicious and slaunderous psonnes do not cease daylie to 
invente and set forthe false rumors tales and sedicious slaunders 
not only againste vs and the said good lawes and Statutf but 
also haue set forthe dyuse sedicious bookes within this our 
Realme of England meanynge thereby to move and pcurc stryfe 
dyvision and discencion amongest our lovinge and obedient 
(iii.) Subiectt" muche to the disquyeting of vs and our people Where- 
fore We earnestly myndynge to haue the same seuall actf before 
menconed to be duly put in execucon and such psons as shall 
hereafter offende in any thinge cont'h-y to the teno'' and cffecte 
of the said seuall statute to be condignely punysshed and 
havinge espall truste and confidence in your Wisdomes and 
discreccons haue aucthorised assigned and appoynted you to be 

1 Watts and Goodman are named by Puritan writers as " Commissioners " 
who sat to enforce the Advertisements.— See Grindal's Kemains, p. 201. 
Zurich Letters ii.-148. Onslow, Osborne, Gerrard, Yale, Lewis, and Drury 
are all named as Commissioners in contemporary letters. (Parker's Corr. 
pp. 300, 302, 345, 383 ; Grindal's Remains, p. 294.) 

la Out of 27 Commissioners only 7 were " spiritual " persons, the rest 
being Privy Councillors, Common Lawyers, and Civilians in about equal 
proportions. Mr. Gladstone says the High Commission Court was " praise- 
worthy and successful" in placing " these affairs under the control of 
qualified persons in conformity with the great Preamble of 24 H. 8, c. 12." 
(Nineteenth Century, 1888, p. 774.) No civihan was of the quorum. 

our Comissions and by these psentf do give full power and 
auctorytie vnto you or tliree of you^ Whereof you the said 
Archebusshop of Caunterbury or you Busshoppes of London 
Elie Rochester or you the said Thomas Smyth Walter Haddon 
Thomas Sackford or Gilbt GeiTarde to be one from tyme to 
tymc hereafter during-e our pleasure to enquyre aswell by the 
othes of twelve good and lawfull men as also by Wytnesses and 
all other Waycs and nieanes ye can devise of all offences and 
misdemeanors done and comytted and hereafter to be comitted 
and done cont-'^iy to tlie teno"^ and effecte of the said seuall Actf 
and Statute and eytlier of theym And also of all and singuler 
hei'iticall opynyons sedycious bookes contempt^ conspiracies 
false rumors tales sedycyons mysbehavioures slaunderous wordes 
and saying^ piiblisshed invented or set forth or hereafter to 
be publisshed invented or set forth by any pson or psonnes 
againste vs or cont^ry or againste any the lawes or statutf 
of this our Realme or againste the quiet gounaunce and rule 
of our people and Subiectf in any Countie Cyttie Borough 
or other place or placf within this our Realme of England and 
of all and euy the coadiutors Counsellors coumforters pcurers and 
Abbettours of euy such offence And further We do geve full (iv.) 
power and auctorytie vnto you or three of you Whereof you 
the said Archebusshopp of Caunterbury or yon Busshoppes of 
London Elie Rochester or yovx the said Thomas Smyth Walter 
Haddon Thomas Sackford or Gilbt Gen-ard to be one from tyme 
io tyme duinnge our pleasure aswellto heare and detmyn all the 
pmisscs as also to enquyre heare and detmyn all and singuler 
enoi'myties disturbance and misbehaviours done and comytted 
in any Churche Chappell or againste any dyvine s nice or the 
Minister or Ministers of the same^ or cont^^rj- to the Lawes and 
Statute of this Realme And also to enquyre of and searche out 
and to order correcte and reforme all suche psonnes as hereafter 
shall or will obstinately absent theym selves from the Churche and 
suche dyvine s u.yce as by the lawes and statute of this Realme 
is appoynted to be had and vsed And also We do geve and (v.) 
gi'annte full poAver and auctorytie vnto you or three of you 
whereof you the said Archebusshopp of Caunterbury or you 
Busshoppes of London Elie Rochester or you the said Thomas 
Smvth Walter Haddon Thomas Sackford or Gilbt Gerrarde to 

2 It will be noticed that the names of the Bishops bracketed at the foot 
of the Advertisements are included in the Quorum; Bps. Horn and Bulling- 
ham may have been added " with others " to the Commission without being 
made of the Quorum. Compare Parker's Corr. p. 370 with p. 383, and 301n. 

3 The phrase " minister of Divine service " is evidently equivalent to 
cveriitor ojficii. and, as will be seen below (sec. xiii), the word Minister 
included "Archbishops and Bishops." 

be one from tynie to tyme and at all tymes duringe our pleasure 
to visite reforme redresse order correct and amende in all placf 
within this our Realme of England all suche errors heresies 
scysmes abuses offenses contempt^ and enormyties spiiall or 
ecciiasticall whatsoeu which by any*spuall or eccliasticall power 
auctorytie or iurisdiccon can or may lawfully be reformed 
ordered redressed corrected restrayned or amended*^ by censures 
ecciiasticall depriuacon or otherwise to the pleasure of almiglitie 
god thencrease of vtues and the pseruacon of the peace 
and vnytie of this our Realme and accordinge to the auc- 
torytie and power lymitted geven and appoynted by any 
(vi.) lawes orden^ncf or statutf of this our Realme And also that 
you or three of you Whereof you the Archebusshopp of Gaunter- 
bury or you Busshoppes of London Elie Rochester or you the 
said Thomas Smith Walter Haddon Thomas Sackford or Gil'bte 
Gerrarde to be one shall lykewise haue full power and ii.uctorytie 
from tyme to tyme to enquyre of and searche out all Masteries* 
Men querelers vagrawnte and suspecte psonnes Within our 
Cytie of London and ten Myles Compasse aboute the same 
Cyttie and of all assaultf affrayes done and comytted Within 

(vii.) the said Cittie and Compasse aforesaid And also we geve full 
power and auctorytie vnto you or three of you as before 
sumarylie to heare and fynally to detmyne accordinge to your 
discreccons and by the Lawes of this Realme all causes and 
compleyntf of all theym which in respect of Religion or for 
lawfull Matrimony contacted allowed by the same were in- 
iuriously depryved defrauded or spoyled of theire landf goodf 
possessions rightf dueties lyvingf officf spuall or temporall and 
theym so deprived as before to restore into theire said lyvingf 
And to put them in possession amo[vi]nge the vsurpers in con- 
venient spede as it shall seme to youre discreccons good by 

(viii.) youre ires myssyve or otherwise all frusf'tory appellacons 
clerely reiected And further We do geve full power and 
auctorytie vnto you or three of you Whereof you the said 
Archebusshopp of Caunterbury you Busshoppes of London Elie 
Rochester or you Thomas Smyth Walter Haddon Thomas 
Sackford or Gilbte Gerrarde to be one by vtue hereof to heare 
and dermyne all notoryous and manifest advowtries fornicacons 

* By " any" ; not merely such as had formerly been dealt with by the 
Pope, but " all " of every kind were now " annexed and joined to the Crown " 
by 1 EHz. c. 1. 

^a These words "by censures ecclesiastical, deprivation, or otherwise," 
did not exist in the corresponding section of the Commission of 1559. They 
explain why Cecil struck out of the draft " Ordinances " of 1565 the penalty 
of " sequestration, not deprivation," and why no specific penalty apj^ears in 
the Advertisements of 15(56. 

* This is the word which was omitted by Cardwell from his second-hand 
reprint of the Commission of 1 Eliz. (D. A. No. xlv.). 

and eecliasticall crimes and offences Within this our Realme 
accordinge to youre Wisedoiues conscience and discrcccons 
Willing and Coniaundinge you or three of you AVhereof you the 
Archebusshop of Caunterbury or you Busshoppes of London 
Klie Rochester or you the said Thomas Smyth Walter Haddon 
Thomas Sackford or Gilbte Gerrarde to be one from tyme to 
tyme hereafter to vso and devise all suche pollitike Waies and 
meanes for the triall and searchinge out of all the pmisses as by 
you or three of you as aforesaid shalbe thought moste ex- 
pedient and necessary and vpon due pfe had and the offence or (ix.) 
oft'encf before spitied or any of theym sufficiently pued againste 
any pson or psonnes by confession of the partie or by lawful! 
Witnesses or by any other due meane before you or three of you 
Whereof you the said Archebusshopp of Caunterbury or you 
Busshoppes of London Elie Rochestex" or you the said Thomas 
Smith Walter Haddon Thomas Sackford or Gilbte Gerrarde to 
be one that then you or three of you as aforesaid shall haae full 
power and auctorytie to order and awarde suche punyshement 
to euy offender by fyne ymprisonment or otherwise by all or 
any of the Wayes aforesaid and to take such order for the 
redresse of the same as to your Wisdomes and discreccons or 
three of you Whereof you the said Archebusshop of Caunterbury 
or you Busshoppes of London Elie Rochester or you the said 
Thomas Smyth Walter Haddon Thomas Sackford or Gilbte 
Gerrarde to be one shalbe thought mete and convenient And 
further We do geve full power and auctorytie vnto you or 
three of you as aforesaid to call before you or three of you 
as aforesaid from tyme to tyme all and euy ott'endour and 
offendoures and suche as by you or three of yoxi as afoi'esaid 
shall seme to be suspecte psonnes in any of the pmisses And 
also all such Witnesses as you or three of you as is aforesaid 
shall thinke mete to be called before you or three of you as 
aforesaid and theym and euy of theym to examen vpon theire 
corporall othes for the bett triall and openying of the pmisses 
or any parte thereof And if you or three of you as aforesaid (x.) 
shall fynde any pson or psonnes obstinate or disobedient either 
in theire apparaunce" befoi-e you or three of you as aforesaid at 
your callinge and comaundement or els in not accomplisshinge 
or not observinge youre orders Decrees and comaundementf or 
any thinge touchinge the pmisses or any parte thereof that 
then you or three of you as is aforesaid shall haue full power 
and auctorytie to comyt the same pson or psonnes so oft'endinge 
to warde there to remayne vntill he or they shalbe by you or (xi.) 
three of you as is aforesaid elarged and delyued And f urther- 

" In the Commission of 1559 this word was "apparel" in the Patent 
Roll. 1 Eliz., part 9, No. 94t). Its meaning is shown at p. 12, Vol. iv., of the 
Chuhch IxTELLiGENCEr.. But it may have been merely a clerical error. 


more "We do geve vnto yon or to three of yoti Whereof yoa the 
said Archebusshopp of Cauiiterbury or you Eiisshoppes of London 
Elie Rochester or you the said Thomas Smyth Walter Haddon 
Thomas Sackford or Giltite Gerrarde to be one full power and 
auetin^tie by these psentf to take and receyve by youre dis- 
crcccons of euy offender or susj^ecte psonnes to be convented or 
brouo-ht before you a Recognisaunce or Recognisauncf obligacon 
or Obligacons to [our] vse in suche soihe or somes of money as to 
you or three of you as aforesaid shall seme mete and convenient 
as well for theire psonall appearaunce before you or three of you 
as aforesaid as also for the pfourmance and accomplishemeiit of 
your orders and decrees in case you or three of you as aforesaid 

(xii.) shall see it convenient And further our Will and pleasure is that 
you shall appoynte our trusty and Welbeloued Subiecte Will^m 
Bedell to be our Register of all your actf decrees and pceadingf 
by vtue of this Comission And in his absence and defaulte one 
other sufficient pson and that you or three of you or the pson 
whome three of you in mannl aboue rehearsed shall appoynte 
in that behalfe as aforesaid shall geve such allowance to the said 
Register for his paynes and his Clerkf to be levied of the fynesand 
other pfitts that shall aryse by force of this Comission and youre 
doyng^ in the pmisses as to your discreccons shall be tliought 

(xiii.) mete And further our Will and pleasure is that jon or three of 
you as aforesaid by bill or billf signed with your handf shall 
and may assigne and appoynte as well to the said pson for his 
paynes in receavinge'^'' the said soihes as also to youre messengers 
and attendauntf vpon .you for theire t^uell paynes and chargf 
to be susteyned for vs about the pmisses or any parte thereof 
suche somes of money for theire rewardes as to you or thi'ee of 
you as is aforesaid shalbe thoughte expedient Willinge and 
coiTiaundinge you or three of you as aforesaid after the tyme 
of this our Coinission expired to ctyfie in to our Courte of 
Eschequier aswell the name of the said Receyvo"" as also a note 
of all suche fynes as shalbe set or taxed before you to thentent 
that vpon the detminacon of the Accompte of the said Receyvo'" 
We be answered of that that to vs shall iustlie appteyne Willinge 
and coiiiaundinge also our Auditors and other Officers vpon the 
sight of the said Bill signed with the handf of you or three of 
you as is aforesaid to make vnto the said Receyvo^' due allowance 
accordinge to the said billf vpon his Accompte' And whereas 
there were dyuse cathedrall and collegiate Chiurches Gramm 
Scoles and other ecctiasticall incorporacons erected founded 
and ordeyned by the late Kinge of ffamous memorie our deare 
f father Kinge Henrie theighte and by our deare late brother 

"a Cardwell misprints this word " recovering." 

■f The following clauses to the end of section xiii did not exist in the 
Commission of 1559. 


Kinge Edwarde the Sixte and by our late Sister Quene Mary 
and by tbe late Lord Cardinall Poole the ordinaunec rules and 
statute whereof be eyther none at all or altogether ymparfecte 
or being made of such tyrae as the Crowne and regiment of this 
Realme was subdued to the farayne auctorytic of Rome they be 
in some poyntf cont^ry dyuse and repugnanto to the dignitie 
and Prerogaty ve of our Crowne the lawes of this Realme and the 
psent state® of Religion within the same We therefore do geve 
full power [and] auctorytie to jon or to six of you. of whome 
We will the aforenamed Archebusshopp of Caunterbury the fore- 
said Busshoppes of London Elie or Rochester alwaies to be one 
to cause and comaunde in our name all and singuler the 
ordinauncf rules and Statutf of all and eiiy the said cathedrall 
and collegiate Churches Gramni Scoles and other ecciiasticall 
incorporacons togather with theire seuall ires patentf and other 
Writing^ touchinge and in any wise concnynge theire seuall 
ereccons and foundacons to be brought and exhibited before you 
or six of you as is aforesaid Willing and comaundinge you 
or six of you as is aforesaid vpon the exhibiitnge and vpon 
diligent and delibate view searche and exaiacon of the said 
Statutf rules ordenauncf Ires patentf and Wrytingf as is afore- 
said not onlie to make spedy and vndelayed ctificat of the 
enormyties disorders defect^ surplisagf® or wantf of all and 
singuler the said Statute rules and ordenauncf but also with the 
same to adutise vs of such good orders rules and statutf as you 
or six of you as is aforesaid shall thinke mete and convenient to 
be by vs made and set forthe for the bett order and rule of the 
said seuall ereccons and foundacons and the possessions and 
reuenues of the same and as may best tende to thonour of 
almightie god thincrease of vtue and vnytie in the same placf 
and the publike weale and t''*nquilitie of this our Realme to thende 
We may thereupon further pcede to the altinge makinge and 
establisshinge of the same and other statute rules and ordenauncf 
accordinge to the late acte of parliament thereof made in the 
firste yere of our reigne And whereas also We are enformed 
that there remayneth as yet still within this our Realme dyuse 
puse and obstinate psons whiche do refuse to acknowledge 
confesse and set forth our supioritie Prerogatyve and phemin- 
ence within this our Realme and other our dmons and also to 
observe suche ceremonies rightf and orders in dyuyne suice 
whiche hath ben establisshed and set forthe by the Lawes and 
Statute of this Realme and by our Iniunccons We therefore 
do assigne depute and appoynte and do geve full power and 

8 Observe, it was not merely the Boyal Supremacy but "the present state 
of religion " to which the Pre-Keformation Statutes needed to be re- 
adjusted, being " diverse or repugnant." The quorum for this purpose was 
strictly clerical. 

» Excesses of ritual as well as defects were in this way to be got rid of as 
illegal " surplusage." 


auotorytie aud iurisdiccon to you or three of you whereof 
Tharchebusshopp of Caunterbury the said Busshoppes of London 
Elie or Rochester to be one to receave and take of all Arche- 
busshoppes Busshoppes and other psonnes Officers or Ministers 
ecctiasticall of what estate dignitie phemineuce or degree soeu 
they be a cten corporall othe vpon the holy Evangelist^ spified 
nienconed and set forthe in the aforesaid Statute or acte of 
Parliamente entituled An Acte restoring to the Crowne the 
Auncyent iurisdiccon ou the state ecciiasticall and spuall and 
abolisshinge of all farayne j^ower repugnante to the same the 
same othe to be taken and receyved before you or three of you 
whereof the said Archebusshopp or Busshoppes of Loudon Elie 
or Rochester to be one o£ the said psonnes and euy of theym 
according to the tenour fourme and effecte of the same acte 
Willing and requyring you or three of you whereof the said 
Archebusshopp of Caunterbury Busshoppes of London Elie or 
Roi^hester to be one to take and receyue the same othes of all 
psonnes before rehearsed and euy of theym and to ctifie vs 
without delay into our Coiirte of Chauncy of the receyte of the 
same vnder your scales or the scales of three of you whereof the 
said Archebusshopp or Busshoppes of London Elie or Rochester 
to be one And if any Tharchebusshoppes Busshoppes and 
other psonnes Officers or Ministers ecctiasticall afore rehearsed 
or any of theym shall pemptoryly and obstinately refuse to take 
and receyve the same othe then to ctifie the same recusacon or 
recusarons of theym or any of theym vnto vs into our Courte of 
Chauncy without delaye likewise vnder your scales or the scales 
of three of you whereof the said Archebusshopp of Caunterbury 
Busshoppes of London Elie or Rochestei' to be one Wherefore 
fxivO ^^® Will and coiTiaunde you our Comissionls with diligence to 
execute the pmisses with effect Any of our Lawes Statute 
pclamacons or other graunt^ priuyledgf or ordenauncf which 
be or may seme cont^ry to the pmisses notwithstandinge And 
/ \ moreou We Will and comaunde all and singuler Justicf of peace 
j\fayres Shreiff Bayliefff Constables and other our officers 
Ministers and faithfull subiectf to be aydinge helpinge and 
assisting you and at your coihaundement in the due execucon 
hereof as they tender our pleasure and Will Answer to the 
cont'^ry at theire vtTimost pill^. And We Will and graunte that 
f ' \ these our ires patent^ shalbe a sufficient Warraunte and dis- 
chardge for you and euy of you againste vs our lieires and 
successors and all and euy other pson and psonnes Whatsoeu 
they be of and for or ccncnyng the pmisses or any pcell thereof 
or for thexecucon of this our Comission or any parte thereof In 
Witnes whereof &c. Witnes our Self at Westni the xx^i' day 
of July. p ipam Reginam &c. 

To be obtained at the Ottice of the Church Association-, 14, Buckingham Street, St-raiid, 
London, W.C., at the price of Sd per dozen or 4s Oil per 100. 

4tli Thousand. 





1 1 II If 1 11 1 1 n 1 1^ 

i| ! Jli'jy'. i ill i !iiliW i |WTifl'iil i l'll'i{'l'i i |fJi'!i|'i,'l'l'i'iti';']';',-S S55 






Privy Council 



Delivered 8th June, 1872. 

I ?-<^'?roi'^?<v$ 


Hoiifton . 

Church Assocl\tion, 14, Buckingham Street, Strand. 

J. F. Shaw & Co., 48, Paternoster Row. 

J. Kensit, iS, Paternoster Row. 

No. CVIII.] 

r^tl^if If ^i^^ft ^i%^^i^:!%i!^^i%i|^^I?^ ^^^^ iP^^ 


The text of the Jiidgnient has been literally followed 
throughout without addition or omissions: but footnotes 
have been added, and italic type used to draw attention 
to points of importance, and to throw light on the history 
cf the suit. 

J. T. T. 

Right Honourable the Lords of the judicial Committee of the 
Privy Council on the Appeal of Sheppard v. Bennett from 
the Court of Arches : delivered Sth June, 1872, hy 

pis B3:S:G6 the iLrchbishop of York^ 

■ ->£<- 

Present at the hearing if the Appeal: — Lord Chanxellor 
(Hatherley), Archbishop of York (Dr. Thomson), Bishop 
OF London (Dr. Jackson), Master of the Rolls (Lord 
Romilly), Sir James W. Colvile, Sir Joseph Napier, Bart., 
Lori> Justice James, Lord Justice Mellish, Mr. AIountague 
Bernard,* Sir Montague Smith.* 


*HIS is an Appeal from the final Sentence or 
Decree pronounced by the Dean of the Arches 
Court of Canterbury on the 23rd day of July, 
1870, and also from two Interlocutory Orders 
made by the same Judge, in a cause of the 
ofRce of the Judge promoted by Thomas Byard 
Sheppard, the Appellant, against the Rev. 
"William James Early Bennett, Vicar of the 
parish of Frome Selwood, in the Diocese of 
Bath and Wells, the Respondent, for having 
offended against the laws ecclesiastical by having, within two 
years from the date of the institution of the Cause, caused to be 
printed and published certain works in which he is alleged 
to have advisedly maintained or affirmed doctrines directly 
contrary or repugnant to the Articles and Formularies of the 
United Church of England and Ireland in relatiun to the 

* For an account of the addition of these two names to the Court, only four 
days before the trial, see Mr. Miller's "Reply to Mr. Sydney Gedge," p. 27. 

Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, such works being entitled 
respectively " Some results of the Tractarian Movement of 1833," 
forming one of the Essays contained in a volume entitled " The 
Church and the World," edited by the Rev. Orby Shipley, Clerk, 
printed and published in London in the year 1867 : "A Plea for 
Toleration in the Church of England, in a Letter addressed to the 
Rev. E. B. Pusey, d.d., Regius Professor of Hebrew, and Canon 
of Christ Church, Oxford, 2nd edition," printed and published in 
London in the year 18673 and "A Plea for Toleration in the 
Church of England, in a Letter to the Rev. E. B. Pusey, d.d., 
Regius Professor of Hebrew, and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford, 
3rd edition," printed and published in London in the year 1868. 

The Cause M^as instituted in the Arches Court of 

History of the suit. . - _ 

Canterbury by virtue of Letters of Request of the 
late Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells, in accordance with the 
provisions of the Act 3rd and 4th of the Queen, cap. 86.* 

The Respondent was duly cited on the 26th day of July, 1869 ; 
and the Citation, with Affidavit of Service, will be found in the 
Appendix at page 6. 

No appearance was given to the Citation, and in default of 
appearance Articles were filed in accordance with the practice of 
the Court. 

On the 30th of October, J 869, the Judge, having previously heard 
Counsel on behalf of the Appellant, directed the Articles to be 
reformed by omitting such parts thereof as charge the Respondent 
with contravening the 29th Article of Religion, entitled " Of the 
wicked which eat not the body of Christ in the use of the Lord's 
Supper, "t 

* The Dean of the Arches refused to receive these " letters of request " 
(2 Ad. and Eccl. p. 338), but on Appeal, the Judicial Committee in 1869 
reversed this ruling. (2 P. C. 458.) 

f On the ground that " the articles of charge did not set forth passages 
from Mr. Bennett's works containing doctrines on the subject of the 
reception by the wicked of the Lord's body and blood, contrary to the 
teaching of tne Church of England in the 29th Article of Religion, but 
merely referred to a protest Mr. Bennett had signed with other clergymen 
as to the teaching of Archdeacon Denison in which reference was made to 
the real presence. It was necessary to bring the offence within the period 
of two years, as declared by the Church Discipline Act, and the protest 
was signed several years ago." (Monthly Irtell. iv.-yi.) The Bp. of 

s ' 

From such Decree or Order, a Petition of Appeal was presented, 
with the permission of the Judge, and the Appeal came before the 
Judicial Committee of the Privy Council on the 26th day of 
March, 1870, when the Lords of the Committee, having heard 
Counsel on behalf of the Appellant, agreed to report to Her 
Majesty their opinion against the Appeal, and that the Decree or 
Order appealed from ought to be affirmed, and the cause remitted, 
with all its incidents, to the Judge of the Court from which tlie 
same was appealed.* 

An Order in Council, confirming the report of the Judicial 
Committee, was afterwards made.f 

The cause was accordingly remitted to the Arches Court of 
Canterbury, and on the 23rd day of June, 1870, in default of 
appearance on the part of the Respondent, the Judge of the 
Court, having heard Counsel on behalf of the Appellant, himself 
reformed the Articles, and admitted the same as so reformed, 
notwithstanding that the Counsel for the Promoter oljected to the 
reformation of the Articles so made hy the Judge as being at variance 
with, and exceeding the reformation directed hy, the Order of the 
30/A of October, 18694 

On the 1 6th day of June, 1870, the Cause came on for hearing, 
and an application was then made by Counsel that the passages in 
the 5th, 6th, 7 th, and 32 nd Articles, which had been struck out by 

London refused to grant a Commission of inquiry to enable the missing 
link to be afterwards supplied. (M. Intell. iii.-io8.) 

* Reported in Monthly Intell. iv.-69, and 39 L. J. Eccl. p. i. 

t On April 8th, 1870. 

+ The decision arrived at virtually turned upon this point, because the 
XXIXth Article was expressly devised to furnish the touchstone of euchar- 
istic error. Yet on technical grounds the " reception by the wicked " was 
struck out from the articles of charge by Sir R. Phillimore, though at that 
very moment Mr. Bennett was selling at his " Church Depository" in the 
town of Frome, a work containing the following passage: — 

"That the body and blood of Christ, thus really present, are therein and 
thereby given to and received by all, both in respect of those who eat and 
drink worthily, and in respect of those who eat and drink uinuorthily." [!] 

Moreover, under pretence of " reforming" the articles, Sir R. Phillimore 
availed himself of his position to strike out various passages in Articles 
5, 6, 7, and 32, which bore upon the perfectly separate questions of the 
•Real presence ' and ' Adoration.' 


the Judge in his reformation of the Articles, on the 3rd day of 
June, might be reinstated. The Judge, however, 
ArUcie'of"Reiigion. niade no further Order thereon, and the hearing 
of the Cause was continued. 

On the 23rd day of July, 1870, the Judge, by his Interlocutory 
Decree, having the force and effect of a definitive sentence in 
writing, pronounced that the Proctor for the Appellant had failed 
in sufficiently proving the Articles, and dismissed the Respondent 
from the suit 

The present Appeal is from so much of the Interlocutory Decree 
or Order of the 3rd day of June, 1870, as in effect directs the 
passages in the 5th, 6th, 7th, and 32nd Articles to be struck out; 
also from the Interlocutory Decree or Order of the i6th day of 
June, 1870 3 whereby, in effect, the Judge declined to allow such 
passages to be reinstated, and from the final Sentence or Decree 
of the 23rd day of July, 1870. 

The Respondent has not appeared upon the hearing of the 
Appeal, and the Court has not had that assistance from the 
argument of Counsel in his behalf which is especially desirable in 
cases like the present, where the Committee are called upon to 
advise Her Majesty on matters of grave importance as a Tribunal 
of Ultimate Appeal. 

The Counsel for the Appellant first opened the appeal from 
the Interlocutory Order of the Judge of the 3rd day of June, 1870, 
whereby he adhered to the reformation that he had made in the 
5th, 6th, 7th, and 32nd Articles of Charge. With regard to the 
reformation of the Articles, the course originally taken seems to 
be sanctioned by usage ; but it appears to their Lordships to be a 
course attended with considerable inconvenience, and one which 
might lead to great delay, if not to a miscarriage. 

The original Order of the Arches Court directed the Articles of 
Charge to be reformed, by omitting all such parts thereof as 
charged the Respondent with contravening the 29th Article of 
Religion, and this Order was affirmed on Appeal, on the recom- 
mendation of this Committee. 

The form of the Order leaves open to further determination by 
the Court what parts of the Articles of Charge, do, in effect, charge 
the Respondent with contravening the 29th Article of Religion, and 
thus opens the door to further discussion and (as in this case) to a 

further appeal. In the iiieantlme the Judge himself strikes out 
such parts of the Articles of Charge as he conceives to be within 
the previous Order of the (^ourl, and then proceeds to hear the 
cause with the record so altered. If he should have erroneously 
struck out parts not aifected by the Order, the attention of the 
accused, in his answer or evidence, will not have been called to the 
parts struck out, for he would be entitled to consider them as no 
longer forming part of the charge; but if the Promoter, on appeal, 
should succeed in restoring the passages in question, it would 
obviously become necessary to allow the Respondent an opportunity 
of meeting the restored charges. 

In the present case their Lordships have thought it best to allow 
the Appellant to conduct his arguments as if the passages which 
he avers should not have been struck out still remained part of the 
record, and to found any argument upon such passages as he might 
be advised, provided the argument did not seek to establish a con- 
travention by the Respondent of the 29th Article of Religion. 

But their Lordships think it right to observe that it would be 
proper, in future, that before any Appeal be presented to Her 
Majesty in Council, in respect of an Order directing the reforma- 
tion of Articles of Charge or other pleadings, the actual reformation 
which appears to the Judge to be required, should be made by him 
on the face of the Order, so that on Appeal the very passages 
omitted should be clearly brought under the judgment of this 
Committee, instead of an Order directing, by general reference, the 
nature of the alteration required. 

On proceeding to the consideration of the Appeal from the final 
Decree of the Court of Arches, there is one point which was 
prominently brought forward in the opening of the case by the 
counsel for the Appellant, which it appears to their Lordships may 
be separately disposed of. 

The Articles of Charge set forth several passages from the 2nd 
and 3rd editions of a work published by the Respondent, called "A 
Plea for Toleration in the Church of England, in a Letter to the 
Rev. E. B. Pusey." Now the 2nd edition of this work was 
published in 1867, and the 3rd edition in 1868, The 3rd edition 
contains important corrections of expressions in the 2nd edition, 
which expressions form part of the charge against the Respondent. 
The original expressions and their correction are fairly stated and 



set forth 1 y the Appellant in the 7th Article of Charge. (Appendix, 
page 18.) The learned Judge, in the Court below (Appendix, page 
1 1 7), has stated that he has no doubt that the expressions originally 
used by the Respondent, viz. " the real actual and visible presence 
of the Lord upon the altars of our Churches," and again, " Who 
myself adore and teach the people to adore the consecrated 
elements, believing Christ to be in them — believing that under 
their veil is the sacred Body and Blood of our Lord and Saviour 
Jesus Christ," — "contravened the plain and clear intent of the 
Formularies of the Church." And the learned Judge has also set 
forth the alterations of these statements made in the 3rd edition of 
the Respondent's work, and on the passages so altered has found 
that the Respondent has not been guilty of a contravention of the 
Articles as alleged by the promoter. Mr. Bennett's own words, in 
adopting the altered words, are as follows : — 

" My meaning and that which passed through my mind in 
writing the original passages was precisely the same as that which 
is now conveyed in the words substituted, but as the original words 
were liable to a different construction from that in which I used 
them, I therefore most willingly in this edition adopt another 
formula to express my meaning." The learned Judge has 
(Appendix, page 117,) regretted that these alterations made by 
Mr. Bennett in his 3rd edition are unaccompanied by any ex- 
pression of regret or self-reproach on the Respondent's part, for 
the mischief which his crude and rash expressions have caused. 
Their Lordships feel obliged to adopt the censure of the learned 
Judge on this point. 

Upon this state of facts the learned Counsel urged that there 
had been no retractation of the original user, and that, in default of 
actual retractation, the learned Judge should have condemned the 
Respondent in respect of the words used by him in the 2nd edition 
of his work, though varied by the substituted words in the 3rd 
edition, and he cited several authorities for the purpose of support- 
ing this argument. 

But, without regardingthe Respondent's language as a retractation, 
their Lordships think that it is competent for them to take into 
consideration any explanation that an accused person may give of 
the language used by him, and to determine whether such explana- 
tion is made lonajide and is entitled to credit. They attach great 

importance to the fact that the third edition was published before 
suit, and they think that they may accept his later words as the 
more correct expression of the Respondent's meaning. 

In proceeding to consider the substance of the 

Do"tHn!iT"^ charges against the Respondent, their Lordships 

EccTesiasticai think it desirable to recall to mind the principles on 

Courts. which former decisions in similar cases have 


Jn the cases of Williams and Wilson (2 Moore's Reports, New- 
Series, p. 423), their Lordships laid down as follows : — 

" These prosecutions are in the nature of criminal proceedings, 
and it is necessary that there should be precision and distinctness 
in the accusation. The Articles of Charge must distinctly state 
the opinions which the Clerk has advisedly maintained, and set forth 
the passages in which those opinions are stated ; and further the 
Articles must specify the doctrines of the Church which such 
opinions or teaching of the Clerk are alleged to contravene, and the 
particular Articles of Religion or portions of the Formularies which 
contain such doctrines. The accuser is, for the purpose of the 
charge, confined to the passages which are included and set out in 
the Articles as the matter of the accusation ; but it is competent to 
the accused party to explain from the rest of his work the sense or 
meaning of any passage or word that is challenged by the accuser." 

So in the judgment in the Gorham case — 

" The question which we have to decide is, not whether the opinions 
are theologically sound or unsound, not whether upon some of the 
doctrines comprised in these opinions, other opinions opposite to 
them may or may not be held with equal or even greater reason 
by other learned and pious ministers of the Church ; but 
whether these opinions now under our consideration, are contrary or 
repugnant to the doctrines which the Church of England, by 
its Articles, Formularies, and Rubrics, requires to be held by 
its ministers, so that upon the ground of those opinions the 
Appellant can lawfully be excluded from his benefice." . . . "This 
question must be decided by the Articles and the Liturgy ; and we 
must apply to the construction of those books the same rules 
which have been long established, and are by law applicable to the 
construction of all written instruments. We must endeavour to 
attain for ourselves the true meaning of the language employed, 


assisted only by the consideration of such external or historical 
facts as we may find necessary to enable us to understand the 
subject-matter to which the instruments relate, and the meaning of 
the words employed." ..." There were different doctrines or 
opinions prevailing or under discussion at the times when the 
Articles and Liturgy were framed, and ultimately made part of the 
law ; but we are not to be in any way influenced by the particular 
opinions of the eminent men who propounded or discussed them, 
or by the authorities by -which they may be supposed to have been 
influenced, or by any supposed tendency to give preponderance to 
Calvinistic or Arminian doctrines. The Articles and Liturgy, as 
we now have them, must be considered as the final result of the 
discussion which took place ; not the representation of the opinions 
of any particular men, Calvinistic, Arminian, or any other; but the 
conclusion which we must presume to have been deduced from 
a due consideration of all the circumstances of the case, including 
both the sources from which the declared doctrine was derived, 
and the erroneous opinions which were to be corrected." . . . 
"This Court has no jurisdiction or authority to settle matters of faith 
or to determine what ought in any case to be the doctrine of the 
Church of England. Its duty extends only to the consideration of 
that which is by law established to be the doctrine of the Church 
of England upon the true and legal construction of the Articles and 

Lord Stowell had long before said, in the case 6i King's Proctor 
V. Stone: "If any Article is really a subject of dubious interpretation, 
it would be highly improper for the Court to fix on one meaning and 
prosecute all those who hold a contrary opinion regarding its 
interpretation. It is a very different thing where the authority of 
the Articles is totally eluded, and the party deliberately declares 
the intention of teaching doctrines contrary to them." 

To the principles thus laid down their Lordships will adhere in 
the present case. 

The attention of the Court has been directed to the successive 
revisions of the Book of Common Prayer, and to alterations or 
omissions which have been made in it at different times. Changes 
by wh.^h words or passages inculcating particular doctrines, or 
assuming a belief in them, have been struck out, are most material 
as evidence that the Church has deliberately ceased to affirm those 


•doctrines in her public services. At the same time it is material 
to observe that the necessary effect of such changes, when they 
stand alone, is that it ceases to be unlawful to contradict such 
doctrines, and not that it becomes unlawful to maintain them. In 
the public or common prayers and devotional othces of the Church 
all her members are expected and entitled to join ; 
Rituaicompromises it is necessarv, therefore, that such forms of w^orship 

the worshippers ■ ^ 

more than as are prescribed by authority for sreneral use .should 

preachint;. ^ / . 

embody those beliefs only which are assumed to be 
generally held by members of the Church. 

In the case of Westerton v. Liddell (and again in Martin v. 
Mackonochie) their Lordships say " In the performance of the 
services, rites, and ceremonies ordered by the Prayer Book, the 
directions contained in it must be strictly observed ; no omission 
and no addition can be allowed." If the Minister be allowed to 
introduce at his own will variations in the rites and ceremonies that 
seem to him to interpret the doctrine of the service in a particular 
direction, the service ceases to he ivhat it was meant to he, common 
ground on which all Church people may meet though they differ about 
some doctrines. But the Church of England has wisely left a 
certain latitude of opinion in matters of belief, and has not insisted 
on a rigorous uniformity of thought wdiich might reduce her 
communion to a narrow compass. 

Dealing only with the third edition of the Respondent's work, 
and having regard to their former decision, that the charge of 
contradicting the igth Article of Religion as to the reception of the 
wicked should he struck out, their Lordships may consider the 
remaining charges against the Respondent under three heads : — 

1. As TO THE prf;sence of Christ in the 


2. As to sacrifice in the Holy Communion. 
3. As to adoration of Christ present in the Holy 


The Respondent is charged with maintaining under these three 
heads the following propositions : — 

1. That in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper there is an 
actual presence of the true Body and Blood of our Lord in the 
consecrated bread and wine, by virtue of and upon the consecra- 


tion, without or external to the communicant, and irrespective of 
the faith and worthiness of the communicant, and separately 
from the act of reception by the communicant ; and it was 
contended by Counsel under this head that the true Body of 
Christ meant the natural Body. 

2. That the Communion Table is an altar of sacrifice, at 
which the priest appears in a sacerdotal position at the celebra- 
tion of the Holy Communion, and that at such celebration there 
is a great sacrifice or offering of our Lord by the ministering 
priest, in which the mediation of our Lord ascends from the 
altar to plead for the sins of men. 

3. That adoration is due to Christ present upon the altars or 
Communion tables of the churches, in the Sacrament, under 
the form of bread and wine, on the ground that under their veil 
is the Body and Blood of our Lord. 

The several positions so maintained are averred, each and all, to 
be repugnant to the doctrines of our Church, as set forth in the 
Articles and Formularies in that behalf specially alleged. 

Their Lordships are bound to consider, in the first place, what 
has been affirmed and what has been denied, in reference to the 
doctrine to which these three statements relate. 

The 4th Article of Religion affirms : — 
Statements ^ " That Christ did truly rise from death and took 

^ o^ ^^^ . again His body, with flesh and bones and all things 

bormularies. o j ' o 

appertaining to the perfection of man's nature, 
wherewith He ascended into Heaven ; and there sitteth until He 
return to judge all men at the Last Day. 

In the 28th Article of Religion it is affirmed : — 

1 . " The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that 
Christians ought to have among themselves, one to another, but 
rather is a Sacrament of our redemption by Christ's death : inso- 
much that to such as rightly, worthily, and with faith receive the 
same, the bread which we break is a partaking of the Body of 
Christ, and likewise the cup of blessing is a partaking of the Blood 
of Christ." 

2. " Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of bread 
and wine) in the Supper of the Lord cannot be proved by Holy 
Writ j but is "^ t>pugnant to the plain words of Scripture, over- 


throweth the nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to 
many superstitions." 

3. " The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Supper 
only after a Heavenly and spiritual manner." 

4. " The mean whereby the body of Christ is received and 
eaten in the supper, is faith." 

5. "The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's 
ordinance reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped." 

By the 29th Article of Religion it is affirmed : — 

6. " The wicked and such as be void of a lively faith, although 
they do carnally and visibly press with their teeth (As St. Augus- 
tine saith) the Sacrament of the body and blood of Christ, yet in 
no wise are they partakers of Christ ; but rather to their condemn- 
ation do eat and drink the sign or sacrament of so great a thing." 

By the 31st it is affirmed : — 

7. "The offering of Christ once made is that perfect redemp- 
tion, propitiation, and satisfaction for all the sins of the whole 
world, both original and actual j and there is none other 
satisfaction for sin, but that alone." And — 

8. " The sacrifices of masses, in the which it was commonly 
said that the priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead to 
have remission of pain or guilt were blasphemous fables and 
dangerous deceits." 

9. In the Catechism it is stated that "the Body and Blood of 
Christ are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in 
the Lord's Supper." 

Their Lordships proceed, with these passages before them, to 
examine the charges made against the Respondent. 

Real Presence. _, , , ^ , ° r i n j 

The first relates to the presence of the Body 
and Blood of Christ in the Holy Communion. 

The Church of England in the passages just cited holds and 
teaches afiirmatively that in the Lord's Supper the Body and Blood 
of Christ are given to, taken, and received by the faithful com- 
municant. She implies, therefore, to that extent, a presence of Christ 
in the ordinance to the soul of the worthy recipient. As to the mode 
of this presence she affirms nothing, except that the Body of 
Christ is " given, taken, and eaten in the supper on/y after an 

lieavenly and spiritual manner," and that " the* mean whereby the 
Body of Christ is received and eaten is faith." Any other 
presence than this — any presence which is not a presence to the 
soul of the faithful receiver — the Church does not by her Articles 
and Formularies affirm or require her ministers to accept. This 
cannot be stated too plainly. The question is, however, not what 
the Articles and Formularies affirm, but what they exclude. The 
Respondent maintains a presence which is (to use his own 
expression) " real, actual, objective," a presence in the Sacrament, 
a presence upon the altar, under the form of bread and wine. He 
does not appear to have used the expression " in the consecrated 
elements" in his 3rd Edition; this is one of the points on which 
the language of the 2nd Edition was altered. And the question 
raised by the Appeal is, whether his position is contradictory or 
repugnant to anything in the Articles or Formularies, so as to be 
properly made the ground of a criminal charge. 

Setting aside the Declaration at the end of the Communion 
Office, which will be presently considered, we find nothing in the 
Articles and Formularies to which the Respondent's position is 
•contradictory or repugnant. 

The statement in the 28th Article of Religion that the Body of 
Christ is given, taken, and eaten in the Lord's Supper, only after a 
heavenly and spiritual manner, excludes undoubtedly any vianner of 
giving, taking, or receiving which is not heavenly or spiritual. The 
Jissertion of a "real, actual, objective" presence, introduces, 
indeed, terms not found in the Articles or Formularies ; but it does 
not appear to affirm, expressly or by necessary implication, a pre- 
sence other than spiritual, nor to be yiecessarily contradictory to the 
28th Article of Religion. 

The 29th Article of Religion, which is entitled " of the wicked 
which eat not the Body of Christ in the use of the Lord's Supper," 
and which affirms that the wicked and such as be void of a lively faith 
"are in no wise partakers of Christ, may suggest, indeed, an i7iference 
unfavourable to the Respondent'' s statements, but cannot be said to be 
plainly contradictory of them or necessarily to exclude them. The 
two propositions, that the faithful receive Christ in the Lord's 
Supper, and that the wicked are in no wise partakers of Christ, 

* Medium quo. 


when taken together, do not appear to be contradicted by the state- 
ment that there is a real, actual, objective presence of the Body and 
Blood of Christ in the sacrament* after a heavenly and spiritual 

The " Declaration of Kneeling" should now be considered. It 
is as follows : — 

" Whereas it is ordained in this office for the administration of 
the Lord's Supper, that the coinmunicants should receive the same 
kneeling (which order is well meant for the signification of our 
humble and grateful acknowledgment of the benefits of Christ 
therein given to all worthy receivers, and for the avoiding of such 
profanation and disorder in the Holy Communion, as might other- 
wise ensue), yet, lest the same kneeling should by any persons, 
either out of ignorance or infirmity, or out of malice and obstinacy 
be misconstrued and depraved, it is hereby declared, that thereby 
no adoration is intended, or ought to be done, either unto the 
sacramental bread or wine there bodily received, or unto any cor- 
poral presence of Christ's natural Flesh and Blood, for the 
sacramental bread and wine remain still in their very natural 
substances, and therefore may not be adored (for that were idolatry, 
to be abhorred of all faithful Christians), and the natural Body and 
Blood of our Saviour Christ are in Heaven, and not here ; it being 
against the truth of Christ's natural Body to be at one time in more 
places than one." 

This Declaration originally appeared in the second Prayer Book 
of Edward VI., a.d. 1552, in which book the position of kneeling 
was positively enjoined upon those who received the Sacrament. 
It was issued by the King, and was ordered by the Council to be 
appended to the Prayer Book, but after the book had received the 
sanction of Parliament, so that it was not of statutory authority. 
From the Prayer Book of Elizabeth (1559) the Declaration was 
omitted. In 1662 it was inserted in the present Prayer Book, and 
became of equal authority with the rest of the Prayer Book. The 
form of the Declaration was somewhat altered ; the words " Unto 
any real and essential presence there being of Christ's natural 
Flesh and Blood " were altered to " imto any corporal presence of 

* The ambiguity of the phrase " in the Sacrament" covers the double 
meaning of " in the (right use of the) ordinance," or, " in the material 
creatures of bread and wine." 


Christ's natural Flesh and Blood," and the words "true natural 
Body " became " natural Body." 

It was urged for the Appellant that, since the Church recognizes 
only one Body of Christ, the natural and now glorified Body which 
is spoken of in the Fourth Article of Religion, and since the Declara- 
tion asserts that this Body is " in Heaven and not here,'' the only 
presence in the Sacrament which can be held consistently with the 
Declaration is a presence to the soul of the communicant. 

It was insisted that the word " natural " applied to the Body of 
Christ can convey no additional meaning, unless it be used to 
distinguish the true Body of Christ, which is His natural Body, 
from the Church, which is His Body in a mystical or figurative 
sense J and that the expression " corporal presence" cannot mean 
a presence in the manner or under the conditions in and imder 
which material bodies are present or exist in space 5 that it must 
mean or include any presence whatever in the elements, as contra- 
distinguished from a presence to* the spiritual apprehension of the 
receiver. There can be no question, it was argued, as to the mode 
or manner of the presence ; for no mode or manner of presence is 
conceivable which would reconcile the proposition that the true 
Body of Christ is in the elements, with the proposition that the 
natural Body is in Heaven and not here. 

Their Lordships are of opinion that these inferences, whether 
probable or not, are by no means of that plain and certain 
character which the conclusion they are asked to draw from them 
requires. The matters to which they relate are confessedly not 
comprehensible, or very imperfectly comprehensible, by the human 
understanding ; the province of reasoning as applied to them is 
therefore very limited ; and the terms employed have not, and 
cannot have, that precision of meaning which the character of the 
argument demands. Concerning the mode of reception of the 
Body and Blood of Christ by the faithful communicant, the 
Church affirms nothing more than that it is heavenly and spiritual, 
and that the means whereby tee receive is faith. 

Nor can their Lordships accede to the argument that the words 
" Corporal Presence of Christ's natural Flesh and Blood " must be 

• See " Spiritual Presence as taught by the Ritualists," price One Penny, 
being Tract XCIV. published by the Church Association. 

understood as the Appellant understands them, and the phrase 
" Corporal Presence " regarded merely as an equivalent for the 
different expression in lieu of which it was substituted. On the 
contrary, it is at the least probable that, as the Declaration itself 
was introduced in order to conciliate scruples in one quarter, the 
alteration made in it was designed to remove objections entertained 
against it in another.* 

Their Lordships could not advise the condemnation of a clergy- 
man for maintaining that the use in 1662 of the word " corporal " 
instead of the words " real and essential " in the Declaration of 
Kneeling was an intentional substitution, implying that there may 
be a real or essential presence as distinguished from a corporal 

The Respondent has nowhere alleged in terms a corporal 
presence of the natural Body of Christ in the elements ; he has 
never affirmed that the Body of Christ is present in a "corporal " 
or " natural " manner. On the contrary, he has denied this, and 
he speaks of the presence in which he believes as " spiritual," 
" supernatural," " sacramental," " mystical," " ineffable." 

II. The next charge against the Respondent is, that he has 
maintained that the Communion Table is an altar 
Sa'^Hfi"e*''^ of sacrifice, at which the priest appears in a sacer- 

dotal position at the celebration of the Holy Com- 
munion, and that at such celebration there is a great sacrifice or 
offering of our Lord by the ministering priest, in which the 
mediation of our Lord ascends from the altar to plead for the sins 
of men. 

The Church of England does not by her Articles or Formularies, 
teach or affirm the doctrine maintained ly the Respondent. That she 
has deliherately ceased to do so \\ould clearly appear from a 
comparison of the present Communion Office with that in King 
Edward's First Book, and of this again with the Canon of the 
Mass in the Sarum missal. 

* As matter of history, the change from "real and essential presence" 
was made after the Great Rebellion to combat the denial by anti-Roman- 
ists of " a presence of Christ in the ordinance to the soul of the worthy 
receiver." The re-introduction of " the black rubric " was bitterly resented 
by the Duke of York (afterwards James II.) and the Romish party. See 
" History of the Declaration on Kneeling," in Church Intelligencer, n.-gs- 


This subject was fully discussed before their Lordships in 
Westerton v. Liddell, when it was decided that the " change in the 
view taken of the sacrament naturally called for a corresponding 
change in the altar. It ivas no lo?iger to be an altar of sacrifice, 
but merely a. table at which the communicants were to partake of the 
Lord's Supper." 

The 31st Article of Religion, after laying down the proposition 
(which is adopted also, in words nearly the same, in the Prayer of 
Consecration), that " the offering of Christ once made, is that 
perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction for all the sins of 
the whole world, both original and actual," and that " there is 
none other satisfaction for sin but that alone," proceeds, on the 
strength of these propositions, to say that " the sacrifices of 
masses, in the which it was commonly said that the priest did offer 
Christ for the quick and the dead to have remission of pain or 
guilt, were blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits." 

It is not lawful for a clergyman to contradict, expressly or by 
inference, either the proposition which forms the first part of this 
Article, or any proposition plainly deducible from the condemna- 
tion of propitiatory masses which forms the second part of it, and 
is stated as a corollary to the first. 

It is not lawful for a clergyman to teach that the sacrifice or offer- 
ing of Christ upon the Cross, or the redemption, propitiation, or 
satisfaction, wrought by it, is or can be repeated in the ordinance 
of the Lords Supper ; nor that in that ordinance there is or can 
be any sacrifice or offering of Christ which, is efficacious, in the 
sense in which Christ's death is efficacious, to procure the remission 
of the guilt or punishment of sins. 

It is well known, however, that by many divines of eminence, 
the word Sacrifice has been applied to the Lord's Supper in the 
sense not of a true propitiatory or atoning Sacrifice, effectual as a 
satisfaction for sin, but of a rite which calls to remembrance and 
represents before God that one true Sacrifice. To take one 
example. Bishop Bull says : — 

" In the Eucharist then Christ is offered, not hypostatically,. 
as the Trent Fathers have determined, for so he was but once offered, 
but commemoratively only ; and this commemoration is made tO' 
God the Father, and is not a bare remembering or putting our- 
selves in mind of Him. For ev^ery Sacrifice is directed to God» 


and the olilation therein made, whatsoever it be, hath Him for its 
object, and not man. In the Holy Eucharist, therefore, we set 
before God the bread and iv'uie, ' as figures or images of the 
j)recious Blood of Christ shed for us, and of his precious Body ' 
(they are the very words of the Clementine Liturgy), and plead to 
God the merit of His Sou's Sacrifice once offered on the Cross for 
us sinners, and in this Sacrament represented, beseeching Him for 
the sake thereof to bestow His heavenly blessings on us." — BuIVs 
irnrks, vol. ii. p. 22. 

The distinction between an act l-ij which a satisfaction for sin is 
made, and a devotional rite by which the satisfaction so made is 
represented and pleaded before God, is clear, though it is liable to 
be obscured, not only In the apprehension of the ignorant, but by 
tJie tendency of theologians to e.ialt the importance of the rite tilt the 
distinction itself well nigh disappears. To apply the word sacrifice 
in the sense in which Bishop Bull has used it to the ordinance of 
the Lord's Supper, though it may be liable to abuse and misappre- 
hension, does not appear to be a contravention of any proposition 
legitimately deducible from the 39th Article. It is not clear to 
their Lordships that the Respondent has so used the word 
" sacrifice " as to contradict the language of the Articles. 

III. Their Lordships now proceed to the third charge, which 
relates to the adoration of Christ present in the 



The 20th and 27th Articles of Charge contain the false doctrines 
alleged to be held by Mr. Bennett. The 20th charges that he 
affirms the doctrine that adoration or worship is due to the 
consecrated bread and wine. 

The 27th, that he affirms that adoration is due to Christ 
present upon the altars of our churches in the Sacrament* of the 
Holy Communion, under the form of bread and wine, on the 
ground that under their veil is the sacred Body and Blood of our 
Lord (the passages referred to for proof are set out in the 7th 

* N.B. — Note the ambiguity of the phrase "in the Sacrament" 
contrasted with " a presence of Christ in the ordinance to the soul of the 
worthy receiver," as defined above, p. 13. 


The 31st Article charges that these doctrines are contrary to the 
28th article of Religion, and the Declaration on Kneeling, 

The passages relied on as the ground of these charges are the 
following : — 

" The reader will observe that in the two first editions, at page 3, 
the words were : ' The real actual and visible Presentee of our Lord 
upon the altars of our Chtirches.' In the present edition he will find 
at page 2 the following words substituted: ' The real and actual 
presence of our Lord tender the form of bread and ivine jipon tJie 
Altars of our Churches.' He will also observe that, at page 14 in the 
former editions the words were : — ' Who myself adore and teach the 
people to adore the consecrated elements, believing Christ to be in 
them — believing that under their veil is the sacred Body and Blood of 
my Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.' He will now find the following 
words substituted : — 'Who myself adore and teach the people to adore 
Christ present in the Sacrament, under the form of Bread and Wine, 
believing that taider their veil is the sacred Body and Blood of my 
Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.' " 

" The three great doctrines on which the Catholic Church has to 
take her stand are these : — I. The real objective presence of our 
blessed Lord in the Eucharist ; II. ' The sacrifice offered by the 
priest;' and. III. ' the adoration due to the presence of our blessed 
Lord therein." 

" Well, I do not know what others of my brethren in the priesthood 
may think, — I do not wish to compromise them by anything that I 
say or do, — but seeing that I am one of those who burn lighted 
candles at the altar in the daytime ; who use incense at the Holy 
Sacrifice ; who use the Eucharistic Vestments ; who elevate the 
Blessed Sacrament ; who myself adore, and teach the people to adore, 
Christ present in the Sacrament, under the form of bread and wine ; 
believing that under their veil is the sacred Body and Blood of viy Lord 
and Saviour Jesus Christ; — seeing all this it may be conceived that I 
cannot rest very much at ease under the imputations abo\e recited." 

Their Lordships agree with the learned Judge of the court below 
that the doctrine charged in the 20th Article, namely, that adoration 
is due to the consecrated elements, is contrary to law, and must be 
condemned. But they have admitted, as the learned Judge has 
done, Mr. Bennett's explanation of that language, and therefore 
they are not called upon to condemn Mr. Bennett under the 20th 
Article. The 27th Article of Charge therefore alone remains for 
decision ; it is as follows : — 


" That in or by the passages lettered N, O, and S, hereinbefore 
set forth in the seventh preceding Article you have maintained or 
affirmed and promulgated the doctrine that adoration is due to 
Christ, present upon the Altars (thereby referring to the Com- 
munion Tables) of the Churches of the said United Church of 
England and Ireland in the Sacrament of the Holy Communion 
under the form of bread and wine, on the ground that under their 
veil is the sacred Body and Blood of our Lord and Saviour Jesus 

Their Lordships have now to consider whether or not the 
passages from the Respondent's writings above set forth are 
necessarily repugnant to or contradictory of the 28th Article of 
Religion, or of the Declaration of Kneeling, as alleged in the 31st 
Article of Charge. 

The Declaration of Kneeling states that, by the direction that 
the communicants shall receive the consecrated elements kneeling, 
" no adoration is intended or ought to be done either to the 
Sacramental bread and wine there bodily received, or to any 
corporal presence of Christ's natural Flesh and Blood." 

According to this declaration, neither the elements nor any 
corporal presence of Christ therein ought to be adored. 

The 28th Article lays down that " the Sacrament of the Lord s 
Supper was not by Christ's ordinance reserved, carried about, 
lifted up or worshipped." 

In the 35th Article it had been affirmed that " the Sacraments 
were not ordained by Christ to be gazed upon, or to be carried 
about, but that we shall duly use them." 

It was laid down in Martin v. Mackonochie that such acts as 
the elevation of the cup and paten, and kneeling and prostration of 
the minister before them, were unlawful, because they were not 
prescribed in the Rubric of the Communion Office, and because 
acts not prescribed were to be taken as forbidden. Their 
Lordships in that judgment adopted the words of the committee 
in Westerton v. Liddell 5 " for the performance of the services, 
rites, and ceremonies ordered by the Prayer Book, the directions 
contained in it must be strictly observed ; no omission and no 
addition can be permitted." 

It follows then that the Church of England has forbidden all acts 
of adoration to the Sacrament, understanding by that the consecrated 


elements. She has been careful to exclude any act of adoration on 
the part of the ininititer at or after the consecration of the elements 
and to explain the posture of kneeling prescribed by the Rubric. 
If the charge against Mr. Bennett were that he had performed an 
outward act of adoration on any occasion in the service, tlie 
principles laid down in Martin v. ISIackonochie would apply to 
this case. Such an act could not be done except in the service, 
because the Sacrament may not be "reserved." But even if the 
Respondent's words are a confession of an unlawful act, it is 
questionable whether such a confession would amount to false 
doctrine. And it is also fair to remember, in the Respondent's 
favour, that the judgment in the case of Martin v. Mackonochie, 
which established the unlawfulness of introducing acts of adoration, 
was not delivered until December 23, 1868, after the publication 
of the words that are now impugned. Some of their Lordships 
have doubted whether the word " adore," though it seems to 
point rather to acts of worship such as are forbidden by the 28th 
Article, may not be construed to refer to mental adoration, or 
prayers addressed to Christ present spiritually in the Sacrament,* 
which does not necessarily imply any adoration of the consecrated 
elements or of any corporal or natural presence therein. 

Upon the whole, their Lordships, not without doubts and 
division of opinions, have come to the conclusion that this charge 
is not so clearly made out as the rules which govern penal proceedings 
require. Mr. Bennett is entitled to the benefit of any doubt that 
may exist. His language has been rash, but as it appears to the 
majority of their Lordships that his words can he construed so as 
not to be plainly repugnant to the two passages articled against 
them, their Lordships will give him the beneft of the doubt that has 
been raised. 

Their Lordships having arrived at the conclusion that they must 

advise Her Majesty that the Appeal must be dismissed, feel 

bound to add that there is much in the Judgment 

Censure of Sir R. „ , , , t ^ • t r^ ^ i • i i • i 

Phiiiimore's parti- of the Icamcd Judgc m the Court below with which 

they are unable to concur. The learned Judge has 

endeavoured to settle by a mass of authorities what is the doctrine of 

the Church of England on the subject of the Holy Communion. 

* See note p. 19. 


It IS not the part of the Court of Arches nor of this Committee, 
to usurp the functions of a Synod or Council* Happily their 
duties are much more circumscribed, namely, to ascertain whether 
certain statements are so far repugnant to, or contradictory of, 
the language of the Articles and Formularies, construed in their 
plain meaning, that they should receive judicial condemnation. 

Their Lordships will not attempt to examine in detail the catena 
of authorities which the Judge of the Arches has brought together, 
nor that of the learned Counsel who appeared for the Appellant. 
No mode of argument is more fallacious on a 
" Aufhorities." subjcct SO abstruse and of so many aspects ; short 
extracts, even where candidly made, as in this case, 
give no fair impression of an author's mind. Thus Dean Jackson 
is quoted in the judgment ; but the quotation omits the preceding 
sentencef which gives to the whole passage a meaning difficult to 
reconcile with the purpose for ivhich it is used; while the opinion 
of this eminent divine would have been more correctly repre- 
sented by referring also to the following remarkable passage in 
a previous chapter of this work : " What need then is there of 
His bodily presence in the Sacrament, or any other presence than 
the influence or emission of virtue from His heavenly sanctuary 
into our souls ? He has left us the consecrated elements of bread 
and wine, to be unto us more than the hem of His garment. If 
we do but touch and taste them with the same faith by which this 
woman touched the hem of His garment, our same faith shall 
make us whole. "| Several of those who are cited by the learned 
Judge are living persons of greater or less note, who cannot rank 
as authorities for the history of a great controversy. 

One of the authorities is so questionable, that it requires a passing 

examination. The learned Judge, after quoting the 28th Article or 

Religion, introduces as " a ' contemporanea expositio,' 

Art'.^js.^^'^ *"" from the compiler of this Article, which cannot, 1 

think, be gainsaid,'" a letter from Bishop Gheast to 

Cecil, under the date 1556 (probably a mistake for 1566) explaining 

the sense which he put upon the word "only" in the 28th Article. 

Gheast does not say that he was the " compiler " of the 28th 

* Compare above p. 9. | Works, Vol. x. p. 41. 

X Works, Vol. ix. p. 611. 

71 * 


Article, all but one sentence of which had been in substance in the 
Articles of 1.552 ; and the context shows that he used the word 
"Article" only of this sentence, which, he says, was "of mine 
own penning." Upon the faith of this letter, genuine or not, 
avowedly written for a personal purpose (" for mine own purgation' ') 
is founded an exposition of the words "only after a heavenly 
and spiritual manner," as meaning that though a man "took 
Christ's Body in his hand, received it with his mouth, and that 
corporally, naturally, really, substantially, and carnally . . . 
yet did he not for all that see it, feel it, smell it, nor taste it." 
Upon this alleged exposition their Lordships feel themselves 
free to observe that the words " only after a heavenly and spiritual 
manner," do not appear to contain or involve the words "corporally, 
naturally, and carnally," h/t to exclude them; and that it is the 
Article, and not the questionable comments of a douhtf id letter written 
for personal motives, which is binding on the clergy and on this 

Their Lordships recall once more, in acknowledging the learning 
that has been brought to bear upon this case, the principle which 
this Committee has long since laid down. " There were different 
doctrines or opinions prevailing or under discussion at the times 
when the Articles and Liturgy were framed, and ultimately made 
part of the law 5 but we are not to be in any way influenced by the 
particular opinions of the eminent men who propounded or dis- 
cussed them, or by the authorities by which they may be supposed 
to have been influenced, or by any supposed tendency to give pre- 
ponderance to Calvinistic or Arminian doctrines. The Articles 
and Liturgy, as we now have them, must be considered as the 
iinal result of the discussion which took place ; not the representa- 
tion of the opinions of any particular men, Calvinistic, Arminian, 
or any other ; but the conclusion which we must presume to have 
been deduced from a due consideration of all the circumstances of 
the case, including both the sources from which the declared 
doctrine was derived, and the erroneous opinions which were 
to be corrected."* 

Citations from established authors may be of use to show that 
" the liberty which was left by the Articles and Formularies has 
been actually enjoyed and exercised by the members and ministers 

* Judgment of Privy Council, Gorham Case. 


of the Church of England."* But, to say the least, very few of the 
quotations in the judgment exhibit the same freedom of language 
as do the extracts from Mr. Bennett. And after every authority 
had been examined, there would still remain the question that is 
before this Committee, whether the license or liberty is really 
allowed by the Articles and Formularies — whether anything has 
been said by the Respondent which plainly contradicts them. //' 
the Respondent had made statements contradicting the Articles or 
Formularies, the citation of great names would not have protected 
him; if he lias not done so, he is safe without their protection. 

There is one passage in the judgment which seems especially to 
call for comment : — 

" With respect to the second and corrected edition of his 
pamphlet, and the other work for which he is articled, I say that 
the objective, actual, and real presence, or the spiritual, real presence, 
a presence external to the act of the communicant, appears to me to 
be the doctrine which the Formularies of our Church, duly con- 
sidered and construed so as to be harmonious, intended to 
maintain. But I do not lay down this as a position of law, nor do 
I say that what is called the Receptionist doctrine is inadmissible ; 
nor do I pronounce on any other teaching with respect to the 
mode of presence. I mean to do no such thing by this judgment. 
I mean by it to pronounce only that to describe the mode of 
presence as objective, real, actual, and spiritual, is certainly not 
contrary to the law." 

Their Lordships regret that the learned Judge should have put 
forth this extra-judicial statement, in which he adopts words that 
are not used in the Articles or Formularies as expressing their 
doctrine. The word "receptionist" is as foreign to the Articles as 
the word "objective." Their Lordships have already said that any 
presence that is not a presence to the soul of the faithful receiver, 
the Church does not by her Articles and Formularies afhrm. They 
need not ask whether there is really any doubt as to the admissi- 
bility of the doctrine of Hooker and Waterland, who appear to be 
described as " Receptionists," in the Church of which they have 
been two of the greatest ornaments. 

Their Lordships have not arrived at their decision without great 

* Judgment of Privy Council, Gorham Case. 


anxiety and occasional doubt. The subject is one which has 
always moved the deepest feelings of religious men, and will 
continue to do so. There might have been expected from a 
theologian dealing with this subject, if not a charitable regard for 
the feelings of others, at least a careful preparation and an exact- 
ness in the use of terms. The very divine* whose opinions 
Mr. Bennett seems to have sought to represent, was obliged 
himself to point out how erroneous was his statement of those 
opinions. The Respondent corrected the manifest error without 
an expression of regret at the paui he may have caused to many by 
his careless language. Even in their maturer form, his words are 
rash and ill-judged, and are perilously near a violation of the law. 
But the Committee have not allowed any feeling of disapproval to 
interfere with the real duty before them, to decide whether the 
language of the Respondent was so plainly repugnant to the 
Articles and Formularies as to call for judicial condemnation : and, 
as these proceedings are highly penal, to construe in his favour every 
reasonable douht. 

There will be no order as to costs, as the Respondent had not 

* Dr. Pusey. 

To be obtained at the Office of the Church Association, 14, Buckingham Street, Strand, 
Loudon, at the price of Id each or 12s per 100. 

5th Thousand.] 



(Abridged, hj permission, from the Eecord, November 8th, 1889.) 
— a~^ 'jJ ^ Ci^ '~i i — 

The folloiving "paper loas read hy Mr. Chancellor Dibdin at a 
Conference of Cliurchvien. 

The Dean of Peterborough's Plan is thus stated by himself: — 
'•I wish to see Couvocation declare plainly that the Ornaments 
Kiihric should be taken in its natural and obvious sense (without the 
insertion of a nei^ative) as defining the maximum of allowable ritual. 
But then the rubric so talcen must be permissive not compulsory; and 
as regards vestments, let it be clearly understood that wliile those hi 
use in the second year of Edward VI. are legalized, it shall be 
sufficient if at all times of his ministration a clergyman wear surplice, 
hood, and stole, or scarf." 

... I have no doubt the Dean of Peterborough knows vrhat he 
means, but I am not sure that he has told us, and, moreover, I 
have not observed that those "who have approved cr those "who 
have disapproved "the Plan" have troubled themselves as to its 
particular meaning. ... A compromise without precision is 
apt, in settling one dispute, to create two or three more. . . . 
The Ritual struggle has concerned itself with three matters : — 

(1) Ceremonies, e.g. the singing of the " Agnus Dei " after 

the Prayer of Consecration. 

(2) Ornaments of the Church, e.g. altar lights. 

(3) Ornaments of the minister, e.g. vestments. 

The Ornaments Rubric, as its name denotes, relates only to 
the two last heads. Does the Dean then propose to leave the 
law as to ceremonies on its present footing, or does he propose 
any, and if so what alterations, and what is to be the new basis 
of reference and test of legalitv ? A compromise which pex'- 
mitted the resuscitated ornaments and forbade the accompanying 
ceremonies would in practice produce, I venture to think, 
singular results. I do not know^ whether it will be suggested 
that the " use in the second year of Edwai-d " or " the First 
Prayer Book of Edward " in to be the criterion and limit of 

No. CIX.] 

concessiou. If the former, the limits of concession will be wide 
indeed. If the latter, they will be wide in some directions, 
while in others they will be narrower than some of our Anglican 
friends will find it easy to accept. For instance, incense is not, 
so far as I know, authorized by the First Prayer Book. A 
reference to the First Prayer Book or to the second year of 
Edward would be an entire novelty with regard to ceremonies, 
and it may not be in anybody's mind. But, at any rate, if there 
is to be a legalization of hitherto prohibited ceremonies, those 
who are asked to agree to the Dean's Plan can hardly be blamed 
if they confess to a modest curiosity as to what it is they are to 
agree to. 

But now about the oraaments. The intention is, as I under- 
stand it, to render everything authorized by the First Prayer 
Book legal, but as a maximum only, the ritual of the Prayer 
Book of Charles II., as construed by the Privy Council, being 
retained as the legal minimum. The Dean's phrase is ambiguous 
even here. He says, " Those in use in the second year of 
Edward VI. are to be legalized." The rubric refers to those in 
use by " the authority of Parliament in the second year of 
Edward." The difference is extremely important. Notwith- 
standing all the controversy which has raged round this 
damnosa hereditas of the Reformation, the Ornaments Rubric, 
there has been virtual unanimity in this, that the words "by the 
authority of Parliament in the second year of Edward," denote 
what is authorized by the First Prayer Book of Edward. But 
the omission of the condition as to the authority of Parliament 
seems to open the door to a much wider question, viz., what as 
a matter of fact was the practice as to ornaments in the second 
year of Edward ? No sooner had the Dean propounded his Plan 
than a learned member of the Church Association, Mr. J. T. 
Tomlinson, hastened to point out with consternation that "the 
crucifix, pyx or tabernacle, holy water vat, and all the para- 
phernalia of the seven sacraments were in legal use throughout 
that year," though not " by authority of Parliament." . . . But 
I rather suppose the Dean's proposal is limited to the First 
Prayer Book, and that it is only by an accident that his words 
have a wider application. Taking them in this sense, the result 
would be to legalize some, but not all (^e.g. not the amice or 
the maniple) of what are known as "the vestments," and some 
of the ornaments of the Church to which we have become 
accustomed in Ritualistic churches. But, on the other hand, 
altar lights, i.e. lights on the altar or re-table during Holy 
Communion, when not necessary for illuminating purposes, 
would remain illegal. Is this intended ? Do the AngHcan 
clergy and their newspapers mean that they are willing to 


surrender, say, altar lights, if tliey may wear some of the 
vestments withoat offence, or do they mean that they will 
accept the enabling half of tlie Plan without acknowledging 
its disabling half ; in fact, that they will do these things 
without leaving the othex's undone ? ... To sum up, then, 
this part of the subject, the Dean's Plan appears defective 
because — 

(i.) It does not touch ceremonies at all. 
(ii.) It is ambiguous as to what the test of Icgalitj' which we 

are invited to accept reallj' is. 
(iii.) It draws the line between the legal and the illegal in a 
manner which, under existing circumstances, seems 
arbitrary and anomalous. 

... I pass on to consider what would be the result if the Denn 
of Peterborough's Plan were generally approved and supported. 
He speaks of Convocation, but I need not remind him or you 
that the power of action of that ancient body is sadly inferior to 
its capacity for disquisition, and that, great as is the reverent 
attention which its utterances evoke from us all, we have 
noticed, some of us thankfully, how seldom anything comes of 
them. Before Convocation can deal with the Ornaments 
Rubric, Letters of Business from the Crown must issue, unless, 
indeed, the old Letters are still operative under which, for many 
years. Convocation vainly strove to find a remedy foi" this very 
difficulty. Then Convocation, which, to put it gently, does not 
always reflect public opinion with exactitude, has to agree, and 
then Parliament has to sanction the new rubric ; for, of course, 
any alteration in the Prayer Book is a breach of the Act of 
Uniformity until itself affirmed and made law by an amending* 
Act of Uniformity. I shall leave to others to estimate the 
practical chance of getting such a Bill through Parliament. 
With the condition given of the three great parties of Chui'ch- 
men agi'eed as to it, the task is not, perhaps, quite hopeless or 
desperate, though I notice that Sir E. Clarke, the Solicitor- 
General, recently pronounced it " absolutely out of the question." 
These are his words : — 

" I see that Diocesan Conferences are being held all over the 
country, and I have seen that at many of these Conferences Reso- 
lutions have been passed in favour of a statute law being enacted, 
which shall allow a greater diversity of ritual in the churches in this 
country than is allowed iinder the law as it at present stands. I 
shoTild like to say in all frankness and in perfect friendliness that I 
am sorry to see good men wasting their time. Those who are sup- 
porting or passing Eesolutions of that kind may he perfectly assured 
that the idea that at any time any Parliament, under any conceivable 
political circumstances, will pass such an Act of Parliament as that, 


is as wild a cliimera and as absolute a delusion as ever occurred to tlie 
mind of man." 

At any rate I will assume tlie new rubric constructed and the 
Act placed in the Statute Book. 

What then ? How would the Church stand with reference 
to the extreme section ? To a large extent the illegality of 
Ritualism would have disappeared because it would have been 
legalized, but there would still be a considerable fringe of 
practice both as regards ceremony and ornament which even 
according to the new rubric would be illegal. Would those of 
the clergy whose present ritual exceeds the limits of the 
proposed concession moderate their practice ? Would there be 
no further flights of ritual resuscitation or imagination ? For 
instance, I notice in to-day's Times an extraordinary account, I 
do not know whether it be true, of the dedication of a private 
chapel. There was a i-ood with images of the Virgin and St. 
John, a baldachino over the high altar, a crucifix on the super- 
altar, a tabernacle for the reserved sacrament with a silver lamp 
suspended in front of it. The Bishop of the diocese, assisted by 
another English Bishop, officiated in a gorgeous cope, on the 
back of which the figures of the Virgin crowned and of the 
Holy Child were embroidered. Holy Communion was cele- 
brated, but there were no communicants. The use of the First 
Prayer Book of Edward sounds quite tame and tasteless 
after this. 

It is probable that we shall be told that, while it is impossible 
to answer for the vagaries or the obstinacy of individuals, the 
leaders and the responsible men would use their influence to pro- 
cure a loyal observance of the new compact. . . . But would they 
succeed ? What guarantee will be given that in this, as in so 
many other matters, the tail will not wag the head ? I can 
remember that five-and-twenty years ago it was said that, if 
once it were decided that the then new practices were illegal, 
they would be renounced. It was so decided, and the only 
result was a renewed crusade against the jui-isdiction of the 
Ecclesiastical Courts. What is there to prevent a recurrence 
to the favourite plea for innovation, which has been urged again 
and again in this controversy, that ceremonies and ornaments 
not forbidden, because yiot mentioned, are pex-missible ? It is 
obvious that a conscientious belief in that proposition will 
enable the meekest curate to drive a coach and six through the 
new rubi'ic however stringently worded. Moreover, the differ- 
ences between the legal and the illegal would in many respects 
be so slight and so meaningless, that the only justification for 
repression would be the necessity of loyally carrying out the 
compromise. And who will care two straws fifty years hence, 

or even five years hence, about understandings and undertakings 
entered into between us to-day ? The hxw itself, and not the 
virtuous intentions and generous conhdences of those who made 
it, will be alone regarded by anybody. . . . 

So far as I have had opi^ortunities of judging, High Churcli- 
men, and especially the extreme section, are very cordial I \- 
favourable to the plan. It would be singular if it were otherwise. 
But public interest is, or rather was, recently more directed to 
the question Avhat line the Low Church or Evangelical party 
would take in the matter, ^ow, despite the kindly and cour- 
teous tone of the Dean himself, and despite the cordiality and 
respect cherished for him by Evangelicals, amongst whom he 
has always been regarded rather as a valued ally than as a 
leader, I cannot think the advocacy of some of the patrons of 
the Plan has been altogether judicious. . . . The Dean of 
Peterborough's proposal is one of a chain of efforts which are 
intimately connected with the prosecution of Bishop King. 

In the first instance, well-meaning people, and especially the 
Editor of the Guardian, not discerning that the days are gone 
by for memorials and remonstrances and similar sententious 
demonstrations which lead to nothing, were very anxious indeed 
that Evangelical Churchmen should protest against the prose- 
cution of so good a man. That effort was a failure, principally, 
I believe, because men did not see how they could come to the 
rescue of Dr. King without seeming to condone the ritual 
ofi^ences alleged to have been committed, and this latter they 
were unable to do. Then, on the eve of the proceedings, a 
somewhat mysterious gathering was convened, and the Dean of 
Peterborough was the summoner. It was to consist of a few 
High Churchmen, a few Broad Churchmen, and a few Low 
Churchmen, and the notion was to see whether terms of com- 
promise could not be arranged which would prevent the prose- 
cution. I was asked to go but I declined, because it seemed to 
me that the whole thing was misconceived. ... I should have 
felt myself guilty of an impertinence if I had thus intruded in 
a matter in which my help was not sought, and in which I had 
not the slightest right to claim a voice. So far as I know, 
every other negotiator on the Low Church side, with one 
exception, was similarly disqualified. The Conference came to 
an untimely end, because everybody present had a separate and 
distinct plan, and would listen to no other. Thus, by making 
itself a little ridiculous, the Conference was saved from the 
more ignominious fate of having its conclusions repudiated by 
the principals, whose agents the members professed to be. 

Evangelicals having refused to defend Bishop King, and the 
secret Conference having broken down, the Dean of Peter- 

borough, next brouglit out liis Plan to be looked at. The 
Guardian received it with " genuine pleasure," and for some 
weeks consecutively devoted a leading article to its commen- 
dation. Evangelicals were told, though they did not know it, 
that it was their plan, and they were congratulated in somewhat 
imperious tones upon their unconscious achievement. . . . 

I will quote from a recent article in the Record a passage in 
which, though mixed with more or less disputable matter, the 
situation is stated with fair accuracy. 

" In some respects our position may be described as weak. We 
are a minority. Our views are unfashionable, and tliey are out of 
harmony with the indift'erentism which is the popular creed of the day. 
But in reality the Evangelical position is one of commanding strength. 
We have the obvious sense of the Prayer Book and formularies on 
our side. History is on our side ; and, lastly, the law is on our side. 
History tells us that the Reformers intended to make our Church 
Protestant. Popular belief has always held that they had done so, 
and now, of late years, the law has solemnly decided that what was 
intended to be done, and supposed to have been done, really was done, 
definitely and effectively. Our theoretical position is thus impreg- 
nable. Then practically, although it may be that a majority are 
against us, the balance of political parties, and the difficulties of 
legislation are such that the majority are powerless to change the law 
of the Church on any matter of moment without the consent of the 
Evangelical body. Put plainly and bluntly, that is the situation." 

In other words, the Evangelical party are a garrison fighting 
against superior numbers, but with certain great advantages o£ 
position and behind strong entrenchments. The proposal is 
that they should evacuate the position and step outside their 
entrenchments. Is it wonderful that they hesitate ? We know, 
they say, that like good David in his young days, we are " neither 
noble nor grand," and we hear with submission from Dr. 
Littledale that we are a dwindling and despicable minority 
without intelligence or learning or capacity, but we should be 
more even than this, we should be lunatics if we abandoned 
such advantages as we possess without great and overwhelmingly 
good reason. 

Does overwhelmingly good reason exist for the proposed com- 
promise or surrender, call it which you please ? That is the 
last and the gravest point on which I shall trouble you. I admit 
this, and I believe nine out of every ten Low Churchmen will 
agree with me, that nothing but matters of substantial and pro- 
found importance can justify the continuation of a struggle 
which is a standing danger to the Church, paralyzing its ener- 
gies, marring its Usefulness, disgusting the world outside, and 
imperilling the union of Church and State. I suppose we are 
all, on both sides, sick to death of the conflict. For my part. 

I have repeatedly resolved that I would never again open mj 
lips in public on the subject, and I onlj do so when, as to-night, 
some malign fate forces me to break my resolution. As it is 
with me, so it is with thousands of others. 

That the issue is one of vast importance will not, I suppose, 
be seriously denied by the majority on either side. I know 
there are persons whose happy faculty it is never to see the rela- 
tion of one tiling to another, and who are able to think of the 
affair as a mere tight about the colours of robes and the position 
of kneeling hassocks. The same type of mind would have 
deeply questioned the necessity at Waterloo of spending tens of 
thousands of lives in attacking and defending a dilapidated farm- 
house like Hougoumont. Yet the fate of the battle depended on 
it. A man cannot be blamed if he refuses to look at the great 
Ritual sti-uggle of the last thirty or forty years as merely a 
question of construing an Act of Parliament or a rubric. Every- 
body knows and feels that it is a go-eat deal rnore. Both sides are 
perfectly sincei'e and deeply in earnest. The Anglican claims 
for what he calls Catholic teaching and Catholic practice, 
acknowledged toleration in the Church of England. The 
Evangelical, supported by the authority of the de facto Courts, 
s<ays that neither the one nor the other is really Catholic, or has, 
or ought ta have, a place in our midst. That is a terribly 
definite issue, which no blinking at facts and balancing of 
phi-ases will permanently conceal. It must be fought out, and 
it has not been fought out yet. You may call it fate, or you 
may call it Providence, but there come every now and again 
crises in which it is clear to all that whether the parties desire it 
or not there must be conflict, which must last till one side or the 
other is utterly beaten. The revolt of the Netherlands from 
Philip II. of Spain is an instance. Statesmen fear that Germany 
and Russia may furnish another in the near future. I believe 
when the Church history of this century comes to be written it 
will be seen that the Ritual struggle is of the same nature. I 
know it is said that the Bennett case decided that the teaching 
of which Ritualism is the outward expression is permissible in 
the Church because Mr. Bennett was acquitted. The Dean of 
Peterborough thinks so, though at the same time he is convinced 
that the teaching thus legalized " is not only at variance with 
Scriptui'e but differs altogether from that of the great divines 
of our Church." The nonchalance ivitli which the Dean accepts 
the situation, as he conceives it, is perhaps a little startling, but 
I confess his view is unintelligible to me. I am not going to 
persecute you with extracts from the Judgment. But what it 
comes to is this — the Eucharist is not a sacrifice in a propitiatory 
sense, and there is no corporal or other than spiritual presence 

in the Sacrament. Mr. Benuett's words were held to be not so 
clearly i-epugnant to the law thus laid down as to warrant his 
condemnation. But if that legalized the errors he was supposed 
to hold, but just failed to express, it would not be difficult to show 
that the negative of nearly every article in the Creed has been legal- 
ized within the Church of England. There are living champions 
of heresies of all kinds against whom, however, no prosecution 
Avould have the faintest chance of success. I will only add that 
in saying that the battle must be fought out, and is incapable of 
effectual compromise, I am not indicating how it is to be fought 
or what is likely to be the issue. For myself, I do not believe in 
litigation as to these matters. To some I suppose the position 
seems weak and nerveless. But for my part I feel no ambition 
as a private individual to assist to prosecute a clergyman for 
offences which are against the Church herself far more than 
against nnj parish or parishioner. . . . But this passive 
attitude only seems to me a totally different thing from setting 
to work to procure the sanction of the Church and of the law to 
his irregularities. And as to the issue, I do not profess to foresee 
it. The Anglicans are vexy confident, and not without some 
reason. On the other hand the struggle, long as it has lasted, 
is not, I believe, nearly ended yet. And, when the end comes, 
it will probably be a good deal different from what any of us 





In the "Churchman" of May and September, 1889, 

By HENRY MILLER, Secretary. 

Price Twopence. 


To be obtained at the office of the Church Association, 14, Buckingham Street, Strand, 
London, at the price of .j(? jier doz., or 3s \>n- :00. 

4th Thousand.] 









(TIk fflrtis of tljc f ribn Counxvl, 

RiDSDALE K Clifton, 

On Appeal from the Court of Arches, 

MAY 12th, 1877. 

ILonTJon : 

CHURCH ASSOCIATION. 14, Buckingham Street, 
J. F. SHAW & Co., 48, Paternoster Row. 
I^^^V J- KENSIT, 18, Paternoster Row. 

No. ex.] 


The ipsissima verba of the Judgment have been given 
throughout, but italic type has occasionally been employed to 
bring out salient points ; Marginal headings have been added ; 
and such Notes as are enclosed in square brackets formed no 
part of the original. 

J. T. T. 



judicial Committee of the Privy Council on the Appeal of the 
Rev. C. y. Ridsdale, Clerk, v. Clifton, from an Order oj 
the Judge as Official Principal of the Arches Court of 
Canterbury ; delivered 12th May, 1877. 

Present at the hearing of the Appeal: — Lord Chancellor 
(Cairns), Lord Selborne, Sir James W. Colvile, Lord 
Chief Baron (Kelly), Sir Robert Phillimore, Lord Justice 
James, Sir Montague E. Smith, Sir Robert P. Collier, Sir 
Baliol Brett, Sir Richard Amphlett. Episcopal Assessors : — 
Abp. of Canterbury (TaJ^), Bishops of Chichester (Z)«rw/brc^), 
St. Asaph (Hughes), Ely (Woodford), St. Davids (Jones). 

> »•♦ < ■ 

*HE Appeal of Ridsdale v. Clifton, in which their 
Lordships have now to state the recommendation 
which they propose humbly to make to Her 
Majesty, is an Appeal to Her Majesty in 
Council brought by the Rev. Charles Joseph 
Ridsdale, Clerk, Incumbent, or perpetual Curate 
of St. Peter, Folkestone, against an Order or 
Decree pronounced by Lord Penzance, as Judge 
or Official Principal of the Arches Court of 
Canterbury, on the 3rd of February, 1876. 
This Judgment specified various matters as to which it declared 

that the Appellant had offended against the laws ecclesiastical ; 

but the Appeal is brought in respect of four only of these matters, 

and it is to these only that the observations of their Lordships nee,d 

be directed. 

The four matters as to which the Appeal coni- 

SuB.iEcTs OF Appeal. , . - , , 1 

plains of the Judgment are these : — 

1. The wearing during the service of the Holy Commur. ion ol 
vestments known as an alb and a chasuble. 

2. The saying the Prayer of Consecration in the "service of the 


Holy Communion, while standing at the middle of the west side 
of the Communion Table, in such wise that the people could 
not see the Appellant break the bread or take the cup into his 

3. The use, in the service of the Holy Communion, of wafer- 
bread or wafers, to wit, bread or flour made in the form of 
circular wafers, instead of bread such as is usual to be eaten. 

4. The placing and unlawfully retaining a crucifix on the top 
of the screen separating the chancel of the church from the 
body or nave. 

There were eight other charges against the Appellant, as to all 
of which he was admonished by the learned Judge, but as to none 
of which is there any Appeal. 

Of the four charges which are the subject of Appeal, the three 
first were considered by the learned Judge to be covered by the 
decision of this Committee in the case of Hellert v. Purchas, and 
by the Order of Her Majesty in Council made in that case ; and 
as to them he did not exercise any independent judgment. 

The fourth charge, as to the crucifix, the learned Judge did not 
consider to be covered by authority otherwise than indirectly and 
by implication. 

Their Lordships have had to consider, in the first 
Coifnciu'uiigments. pi'ice, how far, in a case such as the present, a 
previous decision of this Tribunal between other 
parties, and an Order of the Sovereign in Council founded thereon, 
should be held to be conclusive in all similar cases subsequently 
coming before them. If the case of Hellert v. Purchas is to be 
taken as absolutely conclusive of every other case, with the same 
or similar facts, there can be no doubt that the decision of the learned 
Judge on the first three heads, being in accordance with that of 
Hellert v. Purchas, was correct. 

In Hellert v. Purchas, the Defendant did not appear, either 
before the Dean of Arches or before the Judicial Committee ; but, 
after the decision of the Judicial Committee was pronounced 
against him, he presented a Petition praying for a rehearing. 

The Judicial Committee to whom that Petition was referred 
were of opinion that, to have granted such an application, would 
have been to violate the spirit of the 2nd and 3rd William IV. 
cap. 92, which transferred the powers of the Court of Delegates to 

the Sovereign in Council, and provided that every Judgment, 
Order, and Decree should be final and definitive, and that no 
Commission should thereafter be granted or authorized to review 
any Judgment or Decree made under that Act. 

All that this decided was the finality of that Judgment inte?- 
partes; and the propriety of its being held final in that case was 
the more obvious from the fact that a Defendant not appearing in 
the Primary Court or on the Appeal might be supposed to be lying 
by, taking the chance of a decision in the first instance, and then 
trying to get rid of it when it turned out to be unfavourable. 

The present case, however, raises the question of finality not 
inter partes, but as against strangers. 

In the case of decisions of final Courts of Appeal on questions 
of law affecting civil rights, especially rights of property, there are 
strong reasons for holding the decisions, as a general rule, to be 
final as to third parties. 

The law as to rights of property in this country is to a great 
extent based upon and formed by such decisions. When once 
arrived at, the decisions become elements in the composition of the 
law, and the dealings of mankind are based upon a reliance on 
such decisions. 

Even as to such decisions it would perhaps be difficult to say 
that they were, as to third parties, under all circumstances and in 
all cases absolutely final, but they certainly ought not to be reopened 
without the very greatest hesitation. 

Their Lordships are fully sensible of the importance of establish- 
ing and maintaining, as far as possible, a clear and unvarying 
interpretation of rules the stringency and effect of which ought to 
be easily ascertained and understood by every Clerk before his 
admission to Holy Orders. 

On the other hand, there are not, in cases of this description, 
any rights to the possession of property which can be supposed to 
have arisen by the course of previous decisions ; and in proceed- 
ings which may come to assume a penal form, a tribunal, even of 
last resort, ought to be slow to exclude any fresh light which may 
be brought to bear upon the subject. 

It is further to be borne in mind that in the case 

Purchas J. not tina! ... 

because only heard of Heller t v. PuTchas, the Judicial Committee, 

ex p&rte. 

although they had before them a learned and able 
72 * 

Judgment of the then Dean of Arches in favour of Mr. Purchas, on 
the points now raised, had not the advantage of an argument by 
Mr. Purchas' Counsel on those points. 

These considerations have led their Lordships to the conclusion 
that, although very great weight ought to be given to the decision 
in Hebbert v. Purchas, yet they ought in the present case to hold 
themselves at liberty to examine the reasons upon which that 
decision was arrived at, and if they should find themselves forced 
to dissent from those reasons, to decide upon their own view of 
the law. 

Their Lordships will now proceed to consider the 
first charge against the Appellant, namely, that of 
wearing an alb and chasuble. They will, however, premise that 
they do not propose to express any opinion upon the vestures proper 
to be worn by Bishops, as to which separate considerations may 
arise; and in referring to the dress of the parochial clergy, they will, 
for greater convenience, use the term "vestments" for the purpose 
of denoting the alb and chasuble or cope, as distinguished from the 

The argument of the Appellant on this head, which was very 
clearly and very forcibly stated, may be thus summed up. The 
Ornaments Rubric, he contends, in the revised Prayer Book of 1662 
is now the only law as to the vesture of the clergy. It contains 
within its one sentence all that is now enacted upon that subject. 
It sweeps away all previous law as to the vesture of the clergy, 
whether that law was to be found in Statute, Canon, Injunction, or 
otherwise. It authorizes the use of all ornaments which had the 
Parliamentary authority of the First Prayer Book of Edward the 
Sixth. The vestments in question are among the ornaments which 
had this Parliamentary authority j therefore it authorizes the use of 
the vestments in question. 

To this reasoning, if the Jirst proposition in the 

Ornaments Rubric • , , • • ^ e e ^ > i 

not the only, nor seues 06 coTvect m pomt oi lact and law, no excep- 
au^thority,'^ tion could, probably, be taken. Their Lordships, 

however, are unable to accept that proposition. 
They are of opinion that it is a misapprehension to suppose that the 
Rubric note of 1662 as to ornaments was intended to have, or did 
have, the effect of repealing the law ps it previously stood, and of 
substituting for that previous law another and a different law, 

formulated in the words of that Rubric note, and of thus making 
the year 1662 a new point of departure in the legislation on this 

Before, however, proceeding to trace the history of the law, their 
Lordships must observe upon the expression in the argument which 
asserts that the Ornaments Rubric "authorises" the use of the 
vestments in question. In the opinion of their Lordships, if the 
only law as to the vesture of the clergy is to be found in the 
Ornaments Rubric, the use of the vestments of the First Edwardian 
Prayer Book is not merely authorized, it is enjoined. It is not an 
enactment ordering the accomplishment of a particular result, and 
suggesting or directing a mode by which the proposed result may 
be attained. The sole object of the Rubric is to define the mode 
of performing an existing ministration. If the Rubric is taken 
alone the words in it are not optional, they are imperative ; and every 
clergyman who, since 1662, has failed, or who may hereafter fail, 
to use in the administration of the Holy Communion the vestments 
of the First Edwardian Prayer Book, has been, and will be, guilty 
of an ecclesiastical offence rendering him liable to heavy penalties. 
Any interpretation of the Rubric which would leave it optional to 
the minister to wear or not to wear these vestments, not only would 
be opposed to the ordinary principles of construction, but must also 
go to the extent of leaving it optional to the minister whether he 
will wear any official vesture whatever. If the Rubric is not 
imperative as to the alb, and the chasuble or cope, in the Commu- 
nion Office, it cannot be imperative as to the surplice in the other 
services, or any* of them. 

It is necessary now to ascertain the state of the law before the 
Act of Uniformity and Rubric of 1662 : and then to examine 
whether any and (if any) what alteration was made by that Act 
and Rubric. 

First Praver Book ^^ ^^^ First Book of Edward the Sixth (1549), 
of Ed. VI. ^}^g directions as to the vestures of the ministers 

officiating in the public services of the Church (omitting all that 
relates to hoods and the directions as to Bishops) were as follows : 

In the saying and singing of matins and evensong, baptizing and 
burying, the minister was to use a surplice. In the administration 
of the Holy Communion the celebrant was to "put upon him a 

* [See on this point, p 33, as to Litany, &c.] 


white albe plain, with a vestment or cope," and the assistant 
ministers (priests or deacons) were to " have upon them likewise 
the vestures appointed for their ministry, namely, albes with 

Second Book of Thcsc directions were omitted from the Second 

Ed. VI. Book of King Edward (1552)5 and, instead of 

them, a Rubric was inserted, immediately before the order for 
Morning Prayer, in these words : — " And here it is to be noted, 
that the minister, at the time of the Communion, and at all other 
times in his ministration, shall use neither alb, vestment, nor cope; 
but . . . being a priest or deacon, he shall have and wear a 
surplice only." This Book was "annexed and joined" to the 
statute 5th and 6th Edward the Sixth, cap. I, and was established 
as law thereby. 

King Edward died within a few months after the time appointed 
for this statute to take effect, and the re-action under Queen Mar)'^ 
followed. Upon the accession of Queen Elizabeth, the Legislature, 
reverting to the state of matters which had existed when the Second 
Book of Edward was introduced,* determined at once to restore the 
Liturgy and offices of religion contained in that book, with a few 
specified^ alterations, but to leave the question of the vestures of 
the ministers of the Church open for further consideration. The 
natural course under these circumstances was that adopted, viz. to 
"retain" the use of the vestures which had been authorized before 
1552, until a final settlement of that question could conveniently be 

No new or revised Prayer Book was annexed to 
no'fnew; no°° Quccn Elizabeth's Act of Uniformity (i Eliz. cap. 
sSe'!^'* "^*' 2)5 but the Second Book of King Edward, "with 
the alterations and additions therein added and 
appointed by this statute" (viz. "one alteration or addition of 
certain lessons to be used on every Sunday in the year, and the form 
of the Litany, altered and corrected, and two sentences only added 

* [That is not quite accurate. The Act i Eliz. c. 2, began : " Where at 
the death of our late Sovereign there remained . . . one book : " and the 
30th Royal Injunction of 1559 insisted on the ministerial dress of " the latter 
year of Kg. Ed. VI." i.e. of 1553.] 

t [N.B.^ — The Ornaments Rubric, and that relating to the place for morn- 
ing prayer, were not of the number of these " specified alterations."] 

in the delivery of the Sacrament to the communicants,"* as specified 
in the 3rd section), was directed to stand and be in full force and 
effect from the 24th June, 1559. 

The enactment, however, that the Second Book of King Edward 
was to be used, with these alterations and additions, "and none 
other or other ivise " (sect. 3), was further qualified by the provisos 
contained in the 25th and 26th sections, of which the former is in 
these words : — 

" Provided always, and be it enacted, that such ornaments of the 
Church, and of the ministers thereof, shall be retained and be in 
use, as was in this Church of England by authority of Parliament 
in the second year of King Edward the Sixth, until other order shall 
be therein taken by the authority of the Queen's Majesty : with 
the advice of Her Commissioners, appointed under the great seal of 
England for causes ecclesiastical, or of the Metropolitan of this 

In this manner, and not by any textual alteration of the Rubrics 
in the Second Book of King Edward, the directions as to ornaments 
of the First Book were kept in force until other order should be 
therein taken, in the way provided by the Act. 

The authorities whose duty it was to issue to the people, in 
The printed rubric ^SS9> ^ printed Book of Common Prayer, made 
of 1559 was [illegal- conformable to the Statute, prefixed to the Book so 

ly?] "substituted _ ' ■^ 

for that enacted in issued by them a copy, in extenso, of the Statute of 

sections. _ -^ , ■^ ' 

Elizabeth itself ; and they also of their own authority, 
not ly way of enactment or order, but by way of a memorandum or 
reference to the Statute, substituted a new admonitory note or 
Rubric for the note immediately preceding the order of Morning 
Prayer in the Second Book of King Edward."!" 

That note or Rubric, as is pointed out by Bishop Gibson, J was 
not inserted by any authority of Parliament, It was meant to be a 

* [Unhappily the Judges forbore to quote here the very next words which 
were " and NONE other, or OTHERWISE :" the result of which must 
have been to legalise under penalties the rubric of 1552 above cited.] 

■{• [This was, of course, ultra vires : as the Crown could not alter the 
statutory wording of the Prayer Book. And there was at that date 
(June 24, 1559) neither a " Metropolitan " nor any " Commissioners 
under the Great Seal for causes ecclesiastical."] 

J Codex, Ed. 1761, p. 296. 


compendious and convenient summary of the enactment on this 
subject. If it was an accurate summary, it was merely a repeti- 
tion of the Act. If it was inaccurate or imperfect, the Act, and not 
the note, would he the governing rule. 

It is of importance to bear in mind that the Ornaments Rubric, 
which it is now contended contains the whole enactment or law 
relating to the vesture of the clergy, was 7iot, when originally 
introduced in 1559, and was not meant to he, an enactment at all ; 
and it ended with a reference to the Statute i Eliz. cap. 2, set out 
in the beginning of the Prayer Book, in terms which showed that 
the Rubric claimed no intrinsic authority for itself. 

The Statute, by its 25th section, had enacted that the ornaments 
of 1549 should be retained and be in use, but only until other order 
should be therein taken, by the authority of the Queen, with the 
advice therein mentioned. The enactment was therefore in its 
nature provisional, and prepared the way for the subsequent 
exercise of a power reserved to the Queen. If that power was 
not exercised, the enactment in the 25th clause would remain 
absolute. If the power was exercised, the order made under the 
power would not be an order in derogation or by way of repeal of 
the Act ; but the order would be in pursuance of and read into the 
Act as jf that which was done by virtue of, the reserved power had 
originally been enacted in the Statute. 

Did, then, Queen Elizabeth ever take other order, within the 
meaning of the 25th section ? 

Their Lordships do not think it necessary to dwell upon the 
Injunctions of Queen Elizabeth, and still less upon the interpreta- 
tion of those Injunctions ; because they cannot satisfy themselves, 
either that the Injunctions pointed to the vestments now in con- 
troversy,* or that they were issued with the advice required by the 
section of the Act of Parliament. 

But their Lordships are clearly of opinion that the Advertizements 

(a word which in the language of the time was 

Advertlsiments.''' equivalent to " admouitious " or "injunctions") 

of Elizabeth, issued in 1566, were a "taking of 

order," within the Act of Parliament, by the Queen, with the 

advice of the Metropolitan. 

* [On that point, however, since 1877 much additional information has 
been accumulated. See Church Intelliqeneer, iii.-ioi.] 


It is not disputed that these Advertizements were issued with 
the advice of the Metropolitan, and, indeed, also with the advice 
of the Commissioners for causes ecclesiastical ; but it is said that 
they were not a taking of order by the Queen,* 

The Queen had in the most formal manner, by Her Royal 
Letters, commanded the Metropolitan and other prelates to prepare 
these Advertizements, directing them "so to proceed by Order, 
Injunction, or censure, according to the order and appointment of 
such laws and ordinances as were provided by Parliament, and the 
true meaning thereof, so as uniformity of order might be kept in 
every church, and without variety or contention." 

There was no particular form required by statute or by law in 
which the Queen was to take order, and it was competent for Her 
Majesty to do so by means of a Royal Letter addressed to the 
Metropolitan. The Advertizements were issued by the Prelates 
as Orders prepared under the Queen s authoritiy. 

Immediately after their issue, on the 21st May, 1566, Grindal, 
Bishop of London, writes t to the Dean of St. Paul's, requiring 
him to put them in force, and stating that they were issued by the 
Queen's authority, and that he (Grindal) would proceed to 
deprive any who should disobey them. The Articles of Arch- 
bishop Parker % speak of them as Advertizements set forth 
"by public authority." In 1583, in Articles presented to the 
Queen § herself by the Archbishop and some of the Bishops, 
they are referred to as the " Book of Advertizements," and in 
the margin as the "Advertizements set out by Her Majesty's 

Against this it is said there is, nevertheless, other matter in the 
" Parker Correspondence " (lately for the first time published in a 
collected form, though it was partially known to some historical 
writers of the last century, who drew from it similar inferences), 

* [For a copy of the Commission appointing these Commissioners, see 
Tract CVII. pubhshed by the Church Association.] 

t MS. from Dom. Eliz., vol. 39, No. 76. [Printed in Tract XC. of the 
Church Association.] 

X I Card. Doc. An. 320 [and in 1575 Abp. Parker speaks of "The 
Queen's Majesty's Injunctions, and other Her Highness' commandments 
orders, decrees, and Advertisements," 2 Rep. Rit. Com. 418-50]. 

§ 163 State Papers, Domestic, No. 31 [better given by Lord Selborne in 
" Notes on the Liturgy," p. 75]. 


trom which it ought to be inferred, as a matter of fact, that the 
Book of Advertizements was pubhshed without Queen Elizabeth's 

Their Lordships cannot lend any countenance to the suggestion 
that the legitimate inference to be drawn from the tenor and 
language of public documents, from the acts done under them, and 
from the public recognition of their authority, could in any case 
be controlled by expressions found in a correspondence of this 
character. As, however, much of the argument against the 
authority of the Advertizements was founded on this correspond- 
ence, their Lordships think it right to say that they draw from the 
Correspondence, as a whole, a conclusion opposite to that in 
support of which it was referred to. 

. The first draft of the Book of Advertizements was prepared by 
the Archbishop and his colleagues very soon after the receipt of 
the Queen's letter of the 25th January, 1564-5, in the form of an 
order running in the Queen's name ; and it appears, from passages 
in several letters, that they wished the Civil Power to undertake as 
much as possible of the formal responsibility of promulgating and 
enforcing the proposed new order, and that they anticipated very 
great difficulty if, without that sopport, the principal share of the 
burthen should be thrown upon the ecclesiastical jurisdiction. An 
opposite view, however, prevailed at Court, where some of the 
Queen's Ministers and courtiers were more favourable than she 
was herself to the views of the Puritans, and where it was as well 
understood as it was by the Archbishop that the measure would 
encounter much unpopularity and opposition, so far as it was 
contrary to those views. 

It further appears that in the first draft of the book (which is 
printed at length in the Appendix to Strype's " Life of Parker," 
No. 28, p. 84,) there were several doctrinal articles, and other 
articles (about the temporalities of Bishops, the employment of 
schoolmasters, and the dissolution of marriages within the pro- 
hibited degrees) which were afterwards omitted, and the legality of 
all or some of which, under any powers then vested in the Crown, 
might have been more than doubtful. 

That the Archbishop knew that no new "Order " could legally 
be taken by the sole authority of himself and his brother Com- 
missioners, is abundantly clear. 


When, on the 8th March, 1564-5, he sent the first draft to 
Secretary Cecil to be submitted to the Queen, he wrote : — 

" If the Queen's Majesty will not authorize them, the most part 
be Hke to he in the dust for execution of our parts 5 laws be so 
much against our private doings."* 

This draft was not approved ; he sent it again a year afterwards 
(i2th March, \ ^6:^-6), with a letter containing this passage : — 

" And where once, this last year, certain of us consulted and agreed 
upon some particularities in apparel (when the Queen's Majesty's 
letters were very general), and for that by Statute we be inhibited to 
set out any Constitutions without licence obtained of the Queen, I sent 
them to your honour to be presented. They could not be allowed then, 
I cannot tell of what meaning; which I now send again, humbly 
praying that, if not all, yet so many as be thought good may be 
returned with some authority, at the least way for particular apparel ; 
or else we shall not be able to do so much as the Queen's Majesty 
expecteth for, of us to be done."f 

That the Archbishop, both from his communications (in every 
stage of this business) with the Secretary of State (whose answers 
to him do not appear in the correspondence), and also from 
personal interviews with the Queen, must have had the Queen's 
pleasure distinctly made known to him, is no less certain. 

In a letter dated the 12th April, 1566, he gives an account of an 
audience which he had on the loth of March preceding (exactly 
two days before his letter of the 12th March to Cecil), when he 
had explained to the Queen the difhculty of enforcing the uniformity 
desired by Her Majesty. " I answered, that these precise folk 
would offer their goods and bodies to prison rather than they 
would relent. And Her Highness willed me to imprison them. "J 

In his official letter to Grindal, dated the 28th Marth, 1566, 
inclosing the Book of Advertizements, he refers to another inter- 
view which they had both then recently had with the Queen by 
her own command, in which she charged them " to see her laws 
executed, and good Orders decreed and observed. "§ 

In the letter which he wrote on the same 28th March, to the 
Secretary of State, submitting the Advertizements in their final 

* [Parker Corr., p. 234.] f [Parker Corr., p. 263.] 

+ [Parker Corr. p. 278.] § [Parker Corr.. p. 273.] 


form (together with the draft of the letter to Grindal) for approval, 

he says : — 

" I pray your Honour to peruse this draft of letters and the Book of 
Advertizements, with your pen, which I mean to send to my Lord of 
London. This form is but newly printed, and yet stayed till I may 
hear your advice. I am now fully sent to prosecute this Order and to 
delay no longer, and I have weeded out of these Articles all such of 
doctrine, &c., ivhich, per adventure, stayed the Book from Her 
Majesty s approbation, and have put in but things advouchable, and, 
as I take them, against no law of the realm."* 

They could only be " against no law of the realm " if they were 
issued by the Queen's authority. For what purpose were they 
sent to Cecilj except to obtain that authority for their promulgation, 
in the form and manner proposed ? It is true that the words 
follow (which were relied upon by the Appellant's Counsel) : — 
" And where the Queen's Majesty will needs have me assay with 
mine own authority what I can do for order, I trust I shall not be 
stayed hereafter, saving that I would pray your Honour to have 
your advice to do that more prudently, in this common cause, 
which must needs be done." Their Lordships understand by this 
that the Queen had determined that the new order, made with her 
authority and approbation, should be enforced by the Metropolitan, 
through the ecclesiastical jurisdiction, without aid from the Privy 
Council or the secular power ; not that the new order itself was to 
be without warrant, except from the sole authority of the Metro- 
politan, to whom, without the authorization of Crown, the law had 
given no power to make any such order. 

The facts that this duty was undertaken by the Archbishop 
reluctantly and possibly against his own judgment, that his wishes 
and opinions were on several points overruled, and that the Book 
of Advertizements were promulgated, not in the form which he 
would have preferred, but in that imposed upon it by the Royal 
will, all tend to prove that it was promulgated in that form with, 
and not without the Queen's authority. 

If, indeed, the legal effect of the Advertizements were to be 
judged of (as their Lordships do not think it ought to be) by 
the private opinion of Archbishop Parker, there is in the corre- 

* [Parker Corr., p. 272.J 


spondence distinct evidence that Parker, after the Advertizements 
were issued, considered them to be an execution of the statutory 
power. Writing to the Lord Treasurer, November 15, 1573,* 
seven years after the Advertizements were issued, he says : — 
"The world is much given to innovations, never content to stay 

to live well. In London our fonts must go down I do but 

marvel what some men mean .... with such alteration, when order 
hath been taken publicly this seven years by Commissioners, accord- 
ing to the Statute, that fonts should not be removed." 

The Advertizements had orderedf " that the fonte be not 
removed," and this circumstance, and the expressions "order taken," 
" this seven years," and "Commissioners" (the Advertizements 
having been signed by the Bishops as Commissioners), make it 
clear that Parker was referring to the Advertizements. But the 
Advertizements could not have been a " taking of order publicly " 
" according to the Statute " unless they had the direct authority of 
the Queen. 

Their Lordships now turn to the partt of the 

Directions of the t> i c * j • i ■ i > • i i 

Advertisements as Book of Advcrtizements which deals with the 

to Ornaments. r i «*• • t • • i t 

vestures of the Ministers. It is in these words : — 

" In the ministration of the Holy Communion in Cathedral and 

Collegiate Churches, the principal minister shall wear a cope, with 

gospeller and epistoller agreeably ; and at all other prayers to be said 

at that Communion Table, to use no copes, but surplices. 

"That the Dean and Prebendaries wear a surplice with a silk hood 
in the choir ; and when they preach, to use their hoods. 

" Item, that every minister saying any public prayers, or ministering 
the Sacraments, or other rites of the Church, shall wear a comely 
surplice with sleeves, to be provided at the charge of the parish." 

It was not seriously contended that albs or chasubles could, in 
any reasonable or practical sense, or according to any known 
usage, be worn, or could be meant to be worn, concurrently with 
the surplice. If, therefore, the use of the surplice, at the adminis- 
tration of the Holy Communion, was rendered lawful and obligatory 
by these " Advertizements," the use of albs or chasubles, at that 
administration, was thereby rendered unlawful. § 

* Correspondence, p. 450. 

t I Card. Doc. Ann. 326 [p. 292, ist Edit.]. 

X Card. Doc. Ann. [No. LXV. p. 291, ist Edit.]. 

§ [For a refutation of counter-statements, seeChurck luteUigencer, vi.-i2S.l 


Their Lordships do not forget that the Book of Advertizements 
also contains orders upon other distinct subjects not within the 
25th section of the Statute ; as to some of which it was suggested 
in argument that the Queen had no legislative power. But this, 
whether the suggestion be well or ill-founded, is for the present 
purpose, immaterial. 

The proof of the subsequent reception and enforcement as law 
of the order established by the Book of Advertize- 

Contemporary .... 

recognition of this mcnts as to the vesturcs of the mmisters of the" 

" other order." . , .. . rixTiy^ 

Church m the administration of the Holy Com- 
munion throughout the Church of England from 1566 to the Great 
Rebellion, and again between the Restoration and St. Bartholomew's 
Day in i66i,* is complete. 

After 1566, vestments, albs, and tunicles (copes also, in parish 
and non-collegiate churches) are mentioned in the official acts of the 
Bishops and others, performed in the public exercise of their legal 
jurisdiction, only as things associated with superstition, and to be 
defaced and destroyed. They were so treated by a Royal Com- 
mission sent to Oxford by Queen Elizabeth in 1573, and by the 
Visitation Articles of Archbishops Grindal and Sandys (York, 157 1 
and 1578); and Abbot and Laud (1611 and 1637)5 of Bishops 
Aylmer, Bancroft, and King (London, 1577, 1601, and 1612), and 
others. t The surplice, on the other hand, in a long series of Visi- 
tation Articles (sometimes accompanied by injunctions) of not less 
than thirty-two Archbishops and Bishops, of sixteen dioceses in 
England, commencing with Archbishop Parker in i5^7>+ ^^^ 
ending with Bishop Juxon in i64o,§ besides those of various 
Archdeacons, is consistently treated as the vesture required by law 
to be used by all ministers of the Church, not only in their other 

* [In the Catalogue of the British Museum are seven editions of the 
tinrevised Prayer Book (besides an ordinal of 1660), published after the 
Restoration, and used during those two years May 29, 1660, to August 24, 
1662, to which the word " retained" in our present book refers.] 

f [Among these " others " may be named Abp. Grindal, in his Metropoliti- 
cal Visitation of York province, 1571, the Bp. of Carlisle, 1572, Abp. Piers 
(York), 1590, Abp. Abbot, 1611, and Bishops Thornborough (1603), Vaughan 
(1604), Babington (1607), Bp. Howson (1619), and Abp. Laud, 1628, and 

X I Card. Doc. Ann. 320. § 2 Rep, Rit. Com. 589. 


ministrations, but expressly in the administrat'wti nf l-oth Sacramenta. 
Among the most stringent in this respect are the Articles of 
Bishops Andrewes, Overall, and Wren. After the Restoration (if, 
as seems probable, the Visitations of Cosin and other Bishops in 
1663, whose Articles of that year do not expressly refer to the Act 
13th and 14th Car. 2, cap. 4, were held under the state of the law 
prior to that Act), we have not only Bishop Cosin* but Bishops 
Ironside of Bristol, Morley of Winchester, and eight others of as 
many dioceses (whose Articles of 1662 are stated in the Appendix 
to the 2nd Report of the Ritual Commissioners to have been the 
same on this point with those of Morley), all administering strict 
inquiries to the same effect. 

This, however, is not all. There is direct proof in the same 
class of documents, and in others of a still more public and authori- 
tative kind, that the Advertizements were accepted as law, as having 
the Queen's authority. 

In a Visitation held in 1569, Bishop Parkhurst, of Norwich, 
inquired (not expressly mentioning the surplice), " Whether your 
Divine service be said or sung in due time and reverently, and the 
Sacraments duly and reverently ministered in such decent apparel as is 
appointed by the laws, the Queen's Majesty's Injunctions, and other 
orders set forth by public authority in that behalf." That he was 
referring to the Advertizements, and " by public authority," meant 
the authority of the Queen, seems clear from one of his " Injunctions 
to the Clergy " (the fourth), at the same Visitation, about perambu- 
lations, where he orders the clergy, on those occasions, not to use 
surplices or superstitious ceremonies, " but only give good thanks, 
and use such good order of prayers and homilies as be appointed by 
the Queen's Majesty's authority in that behalf." The use of 
homilies at perambulations was prescribed, not by the Injunctions 
of 1559, but by the Adv^ertizements. 

Bishop Cox, of Ely, in his " Injunctions " issued between 1570 
and 1574, directed "that every parson, vicar, and curate shall use 
in the time of the celebration of Divine service to wear a surplice, 
prescribed by the Queen's Majesty's Injunctions and the Book of 
Common Prayer ; and shall keep and observe all other rites and 
orders prescribed in the same Book of Common Prayer, as well 

* Works, vol. iv., 509, 510. 


about the celebration of the Sacraments, as also in their comely and 
priestly apparel, to be worn according to the precepts set forth in 
the book called " Advertizements." And, in his accompanying 
"Articles," he inquired, "Whether any, licensed to serve any cure, 
do not wear at the celebration of the Divine service and Sacraments, 
a comely surplice, and observeth all other rites and orders prescribed 
in the Book of Common Prayer, and the Queen's Majesty's 
Injunctions, and in the Book of Advertizements ? " 

Archbishop Grindal, in his Gloucester Articles of 1576, ordered 
the clergy " not to oppose the Queen's Injunctions, nor the Ordi- 
nations, nor Articles made by some of the Queen's Commissioners " 
(naming those who subscribed the Advertizements), January the 
25th, in the seventh year of the Queen's reign. (The date is that 
of the Queen's letter mentioned in the Advertizements, not that of 
the promulgation of the book itself.) This alone seems to have 
been thought by Strype* (an historian sometimes cited for a 
contrary purpose) sufficient proof that the Queen must in the end 
have authorized the publication of the Advertizements. 

Archbishop Whitgift, in his celebrated Articles of I584,t enjoined 
" that all preachers and others in ecclesiastical orders do at all 
times wear and use such kind of apparel as is provided unto them 
in the Book of Advertizements and Her Majesty's Injunctions, 
anno primo." 

Bishop Thornborough, of Bristol, in 1603 inquired, '* Whether 
at any time, and during the whole celebration of Divine service and 
ministration of the Sacraments, in every your churches, your parson, 
vicar, or curate doth wear a surplice, according to the terms and 
statutes of this realm of England in that behalf provided ; and how 
often default hath been made herein, and by whom ? " In another 
Article as to Perambulations, he inquires whether the clergy say " the 
prayers and suffrages appointed " for that ceremony, "according to 
the late Queen's Majesty's Injunctions in that behalf provided, and 
according to the Book of Advertizements? " 

The Book of Advertizements was referred to as of legal authority 
in several of the Canons of 157 1 ; showing (though those Canons 
were not confirmed by the Crown, nor, apparently, ever put in force) 
the sense and understanding at that time, while the matter was still 

* 1 Life ef Parker, 319. f i Card. Doc. Ann. 413. 


recent, of the Bishops and clergy of the whole Church of England 
represented in the Convocations of both provinces. The 24th and 25th 
Canons of 1603-4, repeated, with express reference to the Advertize- 
ments, as already containing the rule to be followed (" according to the 
Advertizements published anno 7 Eliz." " Juxta Admonitiones in 
Septimo Elizabethae promulgatas ") the substance of the directions 
contained in the Advertizements, as to the use of surplices, &c., in 
cathedral and collegiate churches 5 and the 58th Canon, which 
relates to the use of surplices' at the administration of the Holy 
Communion in parish churches, followed, with scarcely any varia- 
tion, the exact words of the Advertizements on the same subject. 

The Convocations which passed those Canons thought them 
consistent with others (the 14th, i6th, and 56th), which enjoined 
the strictest possible conformity with the orders, rites, and cere- 
monies prescribed by the Book of Common Prayer, without 
addition, omission, or alteration ; a view quite sound and correct, if 
the Advertizements were a legal exercise of the statutory power 
given to the Crown by i Eliz., cap. 2, section 25 ; but, on the 
contrary supposition, erroneous and untenable. The Canons of 
1603-4 received the Royal Assent j so that on that occasion there 
was the most formal, solemn, and public concurrence possible, of 
the Crown and the Convocation of both Provinces, in that under- 
standing of the law, which had been acted upon for nearly fifty 
years by all the executive authorities of the Church. The Canons 
of 1640 (also confirmed by the Crown), which mention " Queen 
Elizabet/is Injunctions and Advertizements,'' carry on the public 
evidence of the same understanding down to the time of the Great 
Rebellion ; and the Divines consulted by the Lords' Committee of 
1641* alleged that the High Church party "pretended, for their 
innovations, the Injunctions and Advertizements of Queen Elizabeth," 
denying, indeed, that either the Injunctions or the Advertizements 
were in force, "but by way of commentary and imposition;" but 
not disputing that the Advertizements had such authority as Queen 
Elizabeth by law could give them. 

To this it may be added that Hooker, the greatest ecclesiastical 
writer between 1566 and the Protectorate, describes the Advertize- 
ments as " agreed upon by the Bishops, and confirmed by the 

* Card. Conf, 273. 


'Queen's Majesty."* Cosin (although, in a passage which will 
afterwards be referred to, he appears to have at one time supposed 
that the conditions of the Statute had not been duly complied with) 
speaks of themf as made under the Queen's reserved authority j 
and Wren J as "Advertizements authorized by law " (i Eliz. cap. 2, 
sect, penult.). 

From all these facts, the conclusion drawn by this Committee in 
Hehbert v. Purchas, that the Advertizements of Queen Elizabeth on 
this subject had the force of law under i Elizabeth, cap. 2, section 
%<,, appears to their Lordships to be not only warranted, but 

Nor is the weight of these facts diminished by the circumstance 
(which was, in the opinion of their Lordships, established by the 
Appellant's Counsel), that the extensive destruction of albs, vest- 
ments, and copes, mentioned in Mr. Peacock's book, and spoken 
of in the Judgment of Hebhert v. Purchas as if it had been later 
than the promulgation of the Advertizements, really preceded that 
event. The same causes which had led to the destruction, 
irregularly and without law,§ of a particular kind of ornaments, as 
to which the law, in its then provisional state, was at variance with 
the sentiment of the moderate, as well as of the extreme, section of 
the clergy of the Reformed Church, would naturally suggest the 
expediency of taking such order, upon the first convenient 
opportunity, as would give legal sanction to the disuse of those 

Reading, then, as their Lordships consider they 

of 1566 a statutory are bound to do, the order as to vestures in the Book 

7euz!"c. 2.^ of Advertizements, into the 35th section of the ist 

of Elizabeth, cap. 2, and omitting (for the sake of 

* 3 Hooker's Works, by Keble, 6th edition, p. 5S7. 

t 5 Works, p. 90. + Parentalia, p. 75. 

§ [Another view would be that the destruction of copes, &c., was due to 
the rubric of 1552 (re-enacted by sec. 3 of i Eliz. c. 2) and the 30th Injunc- 
tion of 1559, both of which were acted upon during the years 1559-66, 
except in a few state functions, in the royal chapel, and perhaps one or two 
cathedrals, where copes were occasionally worn. But no vestments, albs, 
or tunicles were ever worn during those years : nor was the cope worn as 
prescribed by the First Prayer Book. On this view, the Advertizements 
constituted a "further order " under the 26th section of i Eliz. c. 2.] 

brevity) all reference to hoods, it will appear that that section, from the 
year 1566 to 1662, had the same operation in law as if it had been 
expressed in these words : " Provided always that such ornaments 
of the Church and of the ministers thereof shall be retained and 
be in use as were in this Church of England by authority of 
Parliament in the second year of King Edward VI, except that the 
surplice shall be used by the ministers of the Church at all times of 
their public ministrations, and the alb, vestment or tunicle shall 
not be used, nor shall a cope be used except at the administration 
of the Holy Communion in cathedral and collegiate churches." 

It is clear that, during the whole of this period, except during 
the interregnum of the Civil War and the Protectorate, when the 
Episcopalian Government of the Church and the use of the Liturgy 
were interrupted, this state of the law was generally understood, 
acted upon, and enforced by authority. It is also clear that through- 
out this long period the Ornaments Rubric, as originally printed in 
the Prayer Book of Queen Elizabeth, was allowed to remain 
unaltered. This, then, being the state of the law up to and in 1663, 
and the Ornaments Rnhic,up to and at that time, not h'ing in any 
sense a complete and indcpendcjif enactment, but being merely a 
reference to an external law, namely, the Statute of ist Elizabeth, 
cap. 2, the question has now to be asked, was it the intention, and 
was it the effect of the alteration in the Ornaments Rubric in 1662, 
to repeal the 25th section of the Statute of Elizabeth, and all that 
had been done under it, and to set up a new and self-contained 
law on the subject of ornaments? 

The history of the Revision of the Prayer Book is 

Revision of 1662. . 

strongly opposed to such a conclusion. 
The Puritans, in their iSth "General Exception," at the Savoy 
Conference, stated various objections of principle to ceremonies in 
the Church, especially as to three matters: (i) the surplice; 
(2) the sign of the Cross in Baptism 5 and (3) kneeling at the Holy 
Communion. Following up their general "exceptions" with 
objections in detail to particular parts of the Book of Common 
Prayer, they said, commenting on the Ornaments Rubric, as it 
stood before the revision of 1662, "Forasmuch as this Rubric 
seemeth to bring back the cope, albs, &c., and other vestments for- 
lidden by the Common Prayer Book* ^th and 6th Edward the Sirth, 

* \_See footnote to p. 9, supra. 1 

73 * 


and for our reasons alleged against ceremonies under our i8th 
General Exception, we desire it inay be wholly left out." 

Baxter* seems to treat the objection as having been founded on 
the words in the Rubric " at the time of the Communion." "They 
excepted," he says, " against that part of the Rubric which, speak- 
ing of the Sacraments to be used in the Church, left room to bring 
back the cope, albe, and other vestments." 

The words " seemeth to hr'nig hack,''' assumed that those vestures 
of the First Book of King Edward were not practically in use under 
that Rubric. The words did not suggest — and they would have 
been erroneous if they had suggested — more than that the Rubric 
had the appearance o/" giving them some legal authority. The real 
substance of the objection was in the reference to the 1 8th General 
Exception, and in the request that the whole Rubric might be 
omitted, with the object, manifestly, of getting rid of the surplice. 
The Bishops do not appear to have considered the suggestion about 
" seeming to bring back," &c., worthy of particular notice. It would 
have been easy to answer it by showing that, under the Statute to 
which that Rubric referred, the surplice had been legally substituted 
the albs, &c. But knowing that the surplice itself was the only 
thing really in controversy, they contented themselves with saying : 

For the reasons given in our answer " (in which they had defended 
ceremonies generally, and the surplice particularly, but had said 
nothing about copes, albs, or vestments) "to the iSth General 
Exception to which you refer us, we think it fit that the Rubric 
continue as it is." 

* History of Life and Times, cap. 8, p. 155. 

[A few months before his death Baxter brought out a second edition of 
his " English Nonconformity " in which he said of the Ornaments Rubric : 
" Against this we have these Exceptions. 

"I. We know not what was then in use, and therefore cannot consent to 
we know not what. 

" 2. We are told that the albe, and many other ornaments were then in use, 
that are since put down, and we must not consent to restore them, without 
more reason than we hear. And the Canon enumerating the Ornaments 
now, we suppose the addition of all those will contradict it. 

"3. We meet with few Conformists that know what was then in use. 
And we see that all those that subscribe or consent to this, yet use them not. And 
v;e will not run for company into a solemn Covenant consent, to the use of 


Although the Bishops would not yield on this point, it could not 
have been their intention, when they " thought it fit that the Rubric 
should continue as it was," to abolish the use of the surplice,* and 
restore the ancient vestures, in any office in which, as the law then 
stood, the surplice was the vesture proper to be used. No one who 
holds in respect the memory of the Ecclesiastical Legislature of 
that day (whose revision of the Prayer Book was accepted by 
Parliament, almost sub silentio) could impute to them a deliberate 
intention, covertly to alter the substance of the law as to the 
vestures of the clergy (which they had in the Conference declared 
their intention to leave unchanged), by changes apparently verbal 
and trivial, in a Rubric, possessing down to that time no legislative 
authority, and on which they themselves, as will be seen in the 
sequel, never meant to act, and never did act, in any such sense. 

The declarations of the Legislature which bear upon this question 
are (i) the recitals in the preamble of the Act of 1662, and in the 
second section of that Act ; and (2) the preface to the Prayer 

The preamble of the Act of 1662 recites that the Commission on 
which the annexed book was founded had been ordered " for 
settling the peace of the Church, and for allaying the present 
distempers, which the indisposition of the time had contracted." 

The restoration of vestures which had not been in use for nearly 
a hundred years, and had become associated, Jiot in the popular 
mind only, with the idea of superstition, cannot well be supposed 
to have been contemplated by the Legislature as a change con- 
ducive to the peace of the Church, or to agreement within its pale 

those things that we see no body use. The second year of King Edw. 6, was 
the minority of the Reformation, and before we consent to make it our 
pattern, we must know what it was, and whether no Act of Parliament 
have since reversed that which then was used." 

His "thirtieth point" was "Of Canon 58, that maketh the surplice 
necessary to ministration ;" and about a score of the Canons of 1604 were 
also adduced by him as furnishing various "points" of objection in 1690. 

It will be seen that although twenty-eight years had elapsed since the 
new " rubric " came into force, not one of the conforming clergy had used 
the ornaments of 1548, which Baxter admits had been " put down."] 

* [For it must be borne in mind that no priest was allowed to celebrate 
in a surplice under the First Pr. Bk. of Ed.] 


even when that pale might have been contracted by the secession 
of those from whom conformity was not to be looked for. And if 
it had been intended not merely to continue an existing and well- 
known state of things, but to revive uses long obsolete, and to 
prohibit all things previously in legal use, which were not pre- 
scribed by the First Book of King Edward, it can hardly have been 
expected that the desired certainty of rule, and agreement in 
practice, would have been attained by a vague reference to a Prayer 
Book not generally accessible.* 

Of the " Preface " to the Book of 1662 it is to be observed (i) 
that it disallows, as without warrant in law, the practical interrup- 
tion, during the Rebellion and the Protectorate, of the use of the 
Liturgy, " though enjoined by the laws of the land, and those laws 
never yet repealed ; " f (2) that none of the general reasons thereby 
assigned for the revision, and for the alterations then made, are 
such as to make it at all probable that for any of those reasons the 
old vestures would be restored ; and (3) that a comparison of the 
new language with the old is thereby expressly invited, for the 
purpose of arriving at a just view of the reasons for particular 
changes 5 " If any man, who shall desire a more particular account 
of the several alterations in any part of the Liturgy, shall take the 
pains to compare the present Book with the former, we doubt not 
but the reason for the change may easily appear." 

Entering then upon the comparison so invited, the first material 
observation is that on the one hand, the Statute 
•^"ibe^"^^ ^^^^ ■"■ Elizabeth, cap. 2, is reprinted at the beginning of 
the book as an unrepealed and effective law, and, 
indeed, is transcribed in the Manuscript Book approved and signed by 
the two Convocations ; and, on the other hand, the Ornaments 
Rubric of 1662 occupies the same place, and prima facie retains the 

* [That the first Prayer Book was little known is testified by L'Estrange 
and Collier. Cosin's son-in-law had great difficulty in procuring a sight of 
it ; and the way in which L'Estrange's reprint (the only one which then 
existed) misled men like Bingham and Prynne can be seen in the facsimile 
published by the Church Association in their Tract XCIII, " Additional 
Evidence as to the Ornaments Rubric, No. 2," p. 4, price One Penny.] 

■)■ [So far from being "repealed," the i Eliz. c. 2 was incorporated into 
the Prayer Book of 1662.] 


same general office and character which it had in the former book, 
in which (as has been aheady said) it was a note of reference to an 
external law, namely, that contained in the 25th section of the 
Statute, still printed at the beginning of the book. Their Lordships 
cannot look upon this Rubric as being otherwise than what it was 
before, a memorandum or note of reference to that law. Except 
for its new Parliamentary authority (which is a matter scarcely 
entering into the comparison of the old with the new language), it 
would certainly be so. It is true that the former express reference 
to the act of Elizabeth at the end of the Rubric is omitted. But, on 
the other hand, the Act itself is exhibited as a law still in force, 
and the effect and obvious purpose of all the changes in the 
wording of the Rubric (with a single exception) is to make it, as 
far as it goes, a mere extract from, and a simple repetition of the 
words of the Act. The important words of the Act, " until other 
order shall be therein taken," &c., are not now for the first time 
left out; the former Rubric had also stopped short of them when 
it could not possibly control their legal effect. If the manuscript 
alterations in the handwriting of Sancroft acting as Cosin's 
secretary (much dwelt upon by the Appellant's Counsel), could 
for this purpose be accepted as evidence, they would prove, as a 
matter of fact, that the charge was made because (in the language 
of the manuscript) " these are the words of the Act itself." Their 
Lordships do not think that such evidence is admissible ; but the 
same reason is legitimately to be inferred from the comparison 
suggested by the preface to the Prayer Book. It is easy to under- 
stand why the words of the Act should be as closely as possible 
adhered to, if those words as found in that Act, were still the law 
authoritatively governing the matter. The words " shall be retained 
and be in use " were not in the former Rubric, but they were in 
the Statute. If intended as a mere extract from the Statute, or to 
continue and carry forward in 1662 the use of those things which 
were then actually, or in contemplation of law, in use under that 
Statute, they are apt and appropriate ; but if it was meant to bring 
back an old and long disused state of things, by making the Rubric 
of 1662, for that purpose a new point of departure, while repealing 
the 25th section of i Elizabeth, cap. 2, and all that had been done 
under it, the substitution of this particular language for the words 
of the former Rubric, " the Minister shall use," &c,, and the 


recurrence to the exact phraseology of the enactment about to be 
superseded, would seem to be the most inappropriate way conceiv- 
able of accomplishing that object. 

The only other alteration (which is also the single deviation in 
the Rubric of 1662, as far as it goes, from the language of the 
25th section of i Eliz., cap. 2), is this. In that section the words 
were, " such ornaments of the Church and of the Ministers 
thereof shall be retained and be in use as was in this Church," &c. 
The Rubric in use before 1662 was that of 1559, as reprinted in 
the book of 1603-4, which said, "The Minister, at the time of the 
Communion, and at all other times in his ministration, shall use 
such ornaments in the Church as were in use," &c. In the Rubric 
of 1662 they are, " such ornaments of the Church, and of the 
Ministers thereof, at all times of their ministration, shall be 
retained and be in use as were in this Church," &c. ; the words 
"at all times of their ministration," being interpolated into the 
context, of which the rest is extracted from the Act of Elizabeth. 
What is the reason for this change, discoverable (according to the 
rule of the preface to the Prayer Book) from a comparison of the 
new language with the old ? The old language {i.e. that of the 
former Rubric) seemed to imply a distinction which really existed 
when it was used in 1559, between the ornaments of the Minister 
at the time of the Communion and his ornaments at other times 
in his ministration, and the objection at the Savoy Conference as 
understood by Baxter (than whom no one was better acquainted 
w^ith all that passed) seems to have been an apparent recognition 
or admission of this distinction. That distinction, in all parish and 
non-collegiate Churches, had been abolished by the Advertizements 
and the practice under them. The new words (though not 
incapable of being read distributively, if and so far as such a 
distinction might still continue in law), ceased to imply, or to seem 
to imply, any such distinction.* If the words of the Statute had 

* [It is not " the several times," but at " all " times. For as Bp. Geste 
in 1559 told Cecil, the Prime Minister of Elizabeth — 

"Because it is thought sufficient to use but a surplice in baptizing, 
reading, preaching, and praying, therefore it is enough for the celebrating 
of the Communion. For if we should use another garment herein, it should 
seem to teach us that higher and better things be given by it than be given 


been in this place simply followed, there would have been less 
force in the alteration ; but these words, " at all times of their 
ministration," are put in as if to give emphasis to the change, and 
to direct attention to the fact that, in the then state of the law, the 
use of the same vestures by the Minister, at all times of his minis- 
tration, was the ordinary and the general rule. Such a change of 
language here would have been most extraordinary if it had been 
intended to recur in all the Churches of the Kingdom to those 
distinctions to which the Advertizements had put an end, but 
which the terms of the former Rubric seem to recognize. On the 
other hand, it was a natural change of language, if the object was 
to remove some part, at least, of the ground for the Puritan 
objection, that the former Rubric " seemed to bring back. " the 
abolished vestures. 

This explanation of the change is, in fact, the only one which is 
in harmony with or which could justify the note or list of altera- 
tions in the book now deposited in the Library of the House of 
Lords, " out of which was fairly written "* the Book of Common 
Prayer subscribed on the 20th of December, 1661, by the Convoca- 
tions of Canterbury and York, and which book, so subscribed, was 
by those Convocations " exhibited and presented to the King, and 
sent by the King to the House of Lords on the 25th of February, 
1661-2. This original book, from which the transcript was thus 
made, contains the actual record of all alterations and additions 
made by the Convocations, clearly written in manuscript in a 
printed Prayer Book of 16^6, and at the beginning a tabular list of 
the material alterations. It was delivered by the House of Lords 
to the House of Commons as the authority for the book " fairly 
written " which was to be referred to in the Act ; and it is 
impossible to doubt that the tabular list of alterations contained in 

by the other service, which we must not believe." — Dugdale's Life of Bp. 
Geste, p. 145. 

In the Reformatio Legum. (De haeresibus, cap 19), the Reformers said, 
'• Denique nullum relinquimus majorem Eucharistiae venerationem quam 
Baptismi et verbi Dei."] 

* Lord's Journal, April 10, 1662. [The book was photozincographed for 
the Ritual Commission. The history of the "tabular list" is traced in 
Mr. Milton's " Church Perplexities," published by J. F. Shaw.] 


it was inserted for the purpose of enabling the changes which 
Pariiament was asked to sanction to be well understood. This 
tabular list sets out in parallel columns all the material changes 
which had been made from the old form, among which no mention 
of the Rubric in question occurs, and there is then a note added 
in these words : " These are all ye materiall alterations, ye rest 
are only verbal, or ye changing of some Kubricks for ye better 
performing of ye Service, or ye new moulding some of the 

To repeal in i66^ the 25th section of the Statute of the ist 
Elizabeth, and the order taken under its authority, would have 
required either a clear and distinct repealing enactment, or an 
enactment inconsistent and irreconcilable with the former law. 
It was admitted in the argument, and indeed could not be denied, 
that the Statute of Elizaheth was 7iot repealed in terms ; and it is in 
fact, as has been already observed, set forth as the first enactment 
in the new Prayer Book. The Statute is also beyond question one 
of those " good laws and statutes for the uniformity of prayer and 
administration of the Sacrament," which by the 24th section of the 
Act of 1663 are declared to " stand in full force and strength, to all 
intents and purposes whatsoever for the establishing and con- 
firming " of the new Book, and which are thereby directed to be 
"applied, practised, and put in use for the punishing of all 
offences contrary to the said laws,, with relation to the Book afore- 
said, and no other." 

In order to judge whether there is anything inconsistent and 
irreconcilable between the Ornaments Rubric in the new Prayer 
Book and the 25th section of the older statute, that section must 
be read as if the order taken under the section had been inserted 
in it. And, as so read, their Lordships see nothing inconsistent 
between the Rubric and the section. The Rubric served, as it 
had long previously served, as a note to remind the Church that 
the general standard of ornaments, both of the church and of the 
ministers, was to be that established by the authority of Parliament 
in 1549; but that this standard was set up under a law, still 
unrepealed, which engrafted on the standard a qualification that, as 
to the vestures of parish minsters, the surplice, and not the alb, 
vestment, or tunicle, should be used. 

No doubt can be entertained that for nearly two centuries. 


succeeding 1662, the public and official acts of the Bishops and 
clergy of the Church, and of all other persons, "were inconsistent 
with the supposition that the Rubric of 1662 had made any change 
in the law. 

During the twenty-five years immediately succeeding the legisla- 
tion of 1662, we have a series of Visitation Articles (those of fifteen 
Bishops and one Archbishop, of thirteen dioceses, printed either at 
length or by collation with Bishop Morley's form, in the Appendix 
to the Second Report of the Ritual Commissioners, pp. 609, 611, 
615, 633, 639, 642, 645, 649, 653-4), which prove conclusively 
that those whose oflicial duty it was to see the law observed, and 
of whose strictness in the performance of that duty the same 
Articles supply abundant evidence, understood the law still to be 
that the surplice was always to be used by the clergy officiating 
in the administration of the Holy Communion. 

This list does not include any articles of the year 1662 except* 
those of Bishops Hacket of Lichfield and Henchman of Salis- 
bury, who both expressly refer to the Act of Uniformity of that 
year. Upon the point in question. Bishop Hacket inquires in 1662 
thus : — 

" Have you a decent surplice, one or more, for your parson, 
vicar, curate, or lecturer to wear in the time of all public minis- 
trations ? Hath he read the Book of Common Prayer as it is 
enjoined by the late Act of Uniformity for public prayer, adminis- 
tration of the Sacrament, HiC, on some Sunday before the 24th 
August last past, and did and doth he wear the surplice while he 
performed that office and other offices mentioned in that Common 
Prayer Book ? " {Ibid., p. 609.) 

Bishop Henchman (Ibid., p. 611) inquires : 

" Doth your minister, reading Divine Service, and administering 
the Sacraments, and other rites of the Church, wear the surplice 
according to the Canons P "f 

Subsequently, in 1663, 1664, 1666, 167 1, 1673, 1674, 1676, 

* [A much more complete list is given, with vouchers, in Tract LXXXIX., 
published by the Church Association.] 

t [The Canons of 1604 were reprinted in 1660 and in 1662 by "His 
Majesty's authority." — Kennet's Chron. 725.] 


i677> i<579, 1683 and 1686, Articles to the same effect, in different 
forms, but all equally cogent, were administered by the other 
prelates, whose Visitations have been referred to. Bishop Morley's 
form, adopted by nine other prelates. in those years, and used by 
himself in 1674 (as he and nine others had also used it in 1662, 
when the form of the Revised Rubric had been settled by the two 
Convocations, but before it became law), is this : — 

Art. 5 (concerning churches, &c.) : — " Have you a comely, large 
surplice for the minister to wear at all times of his public 
ministration in the Church ? " 

Art. 7 (concerning ministers) : — " Doth your minister, at the 
reading or celebrating any Divine Office in your church or chapel, 
wear the surplice, together with such other scholastical habit, as is 
suitable to his degree ? " {Ibid., p. 615.) 

Bishop Henchman, in 1664 (then translated to London), and 
Bishop Pearson of Chester, in 1674, used this form: — 

Art. 7 (concerning churches, &c.) : — The same as Bishop 

Art. 4 (concerning ministers): — "Doth your minister, in the 
Morning and Evening Service, in the administration of the 
Sacraments, and in performing other religious offices appointed 
by the Church of England, use the respective forms in the Book 
of Common Prayer, together with all those rites and ceremonies 
which are enjoined in this Church 5 and doth he make use of the 
surplice when he reads Divine Service or administers the 
Sacraments ?" {Ibid., pp. 632, 642.) 

Bishops Morley and Henchman were two of the three Prelates 
(Archbishop Sheldon being the third) who are stated by Baxter* 
to have "managed all things" at the Savoy Conference. Arch- 
bishop Sheldon, in his Circular Letter to the officials of his diocese 
in i67o,t directs them to require that all parsons, vicars, and 
curates, " in the time of their officiating, ever make use of and 
wear their priestly habit, the surplice and hood." 

Archbishop Sancroft, in 1686, also used Bishop Morley's form 
under the head " Concerning churches ;" and, under that " Con- 
cerning the Clergy," his 7th Article runs thus : — 

" Doth your parson, vicar, or curate read Divine Service on all 

* Life and Times, 171-2. f 2 Card. Doc. An., 276-9. 


Sundays, and publicly administer the holy Sacraments of Baptism 
and the Eucharist, and perform all other ministerial offices and 
duties, in such manner and form as is directed by the Book of 
Common Prayer lately established, and the Act of Uniformit)"- 
therewith published .... without addition, diminution, or 
alteration P And doth he in those his ministrations wear the 
surplice, with a hood or tippet befitting his degree?" (Hid., p. 654.) 

It was not disputed at the Bar that the subsequent practice in 
parish and non-collegiate churches till about 1840 or later was 
uniformly consistent with this view of the law. 

As public declarations of what was understood to be the state of 
the law shortly after the completion of the revision in 1662, their Lord- 
ships may refer in the first place to the statement of Bishop Sparrow. 
Sparrow was Bishop of Exeter in 1684. He had been one of the 
Commissioners at the Savoy Conference. In 1655 he published 
his "Rationale" of the Book of Common Prayer, which then 
contained nothing* as to the Ornaments Rubric or the ornaments 
of the minister. In 1684, after the Revision, he published a new 
edition, and thus (p. 337) states the law as then understood. 
' The minister in time of his ministration shall use such ornaments 
as were in use in the 2nd Edward VI, Rubric 2 : — viz. a surplice 
in the ordinary ministrations, and a cope in time of ministration of 
the Holy Communion in Cathedral and Collegiate churches.' — 
Queen Elizabeth's Articles, set forth the seventh year of her 

Their Lordships may further refer to the alterations proposed by 
the Commissioners of 1689 appointed to revise the Prayer Book, 
with a view to the relief of Dissenters. f The Rubric proposed by 
them to be substituted for the Ornaments Rubric may be taken to 
be a statement of what at that time was understood to be the state 
of the law : " Whereas the surplice is appointed to he used by all 
ministers in performing Divine Offices, it is hereby declared that it 
is continued only as being an antient and decent habit. But if any 
minister shall declare to his Bishop that he cannot satisfye his 

* [It appeared first in the edition of 1657. Also in the editions of 1661, 
1664, 1668, 1672, and 1676. He evidently knew of no change in the law 
during the interval.] 

t Ho. of Com. Papers, vol. 36 (1854). 


conscience in the use of the surplice, in that case the Bishop shall 
dispense with his not using it," &c. 

And the " Bill of Comprehension " introduced into Parliament 
by the King's authority about the same time contained a clause* 
framed on the same principle. 

It is abundantly clear that, if any person had imagined that the 
Prayer Book of 1662 introduced, a change on this subject, there 
were very many who would gladly have acted on it. No instance 
has been given of any person having acted on it. On the other 
hand, every one continued to act according to the old law, although, 
if the argument of the Appellant is correct, every one in so doing 
was acting illegally. The practice, — consistent with the old law, 
inconsistent with the argument of the Appellant, — has been uniforviy 
open, continuous, and under authoritative sanction. 

What, then, in a question of this nature, is the weight in law of 
such contemporaneous and continual usage ? Their Lordships 
may take the answer to this question from the words, either of 
Lord Campbell, in Gordo7i v. Bishop of Exeter ;f or of Chief Baron 
Pollock in Pochin v. Buncombe ;X or of Dr. Lushington in 
J Fester ton v. Lid del I. ^ 

Lord Campbell, referring to a Statute of 25 Henry VIII, cap. 19, 
said : — 

"Were the language of the Statute obscure, instead of being 
clear, we should not be justified in differing from the construction 
put upon it by contemporaneous and long-continued usage. There 
would be no safety for property or liberty, if it could be successfully 
contended that all lawyers and statesmen have been mistaken for 
centuries as to the true meaning of an old Act of Parliament." 

Chief Baron Pollock, with reference to the maxim — " Contemporanea 
expositio fortissima est in lege," said : — 

" The rule amounts to no more than this, that if the Act be 
susceptible of the interpretation which has thus been put upon it 
by long usage, the Court will not disturb that construction." 

Dr. Lushington said : — 

" Usage, for a long series of years, in ecclesiastical customs 
especially, is entitled to the greatest respect j it has every presump- 
tion in its favour ; but it cannot contravene or prevail against 

* MS. in Burnet Papers, Cardw. Conf., p. 457. 

t 15 Q.B., 73, 74. J I H. andN. 856. § Moore, separate Report, 79. 


positive law ; though, where doubt exists, it might turn the 

A Church Rubric, taking the form of directions to be acted on by 
large numbers of persons from week to week, and from day to day, 
is a subject above all others for exposition by contemporaneous 
and continual usage, and the principles laid down in the cases to 
which their Lordships have referred, fortified as they easily might 
be by many other authorities, seem to their Lordships to be decisive 
of the present question. 

What their Lordships have already said is sufficient to show 
that, in their opinion, according to the ordinary principles of legal 
construction and interpretation, the Ornaments Rubric of 1662, 
on the subject of the vestures of ministers, cannot, any more than 
the Rubric on the same subject which preceded it, be looked at 
otherwise than in connection with the Statute of the ist of Elizabeth, 
cap. 2. They may, however, also point out a singular incongruity 
which might arise from looking at it unconnected with the Statute. 
The Rubric states that such ornaments of the ministers, at all 
times of their ministration, shall be retained and be in use as were 
in the Church by authority of Parliament in 1549, that is, under 
the First Prayer Book of Edward VI. But under the Book of 1549 
the Rubric as to the vestures in the Communion Service is con- 
fined to that office, and the general Rubric at the end of the Book 
is confined to the saying, or singing, of Matins and Evensong, 
baptizing, and burying. There does not, therefore, appear in the 
Book of 1^49 to be any imperative direction as to the use of the 
surplice or any other vesture in the Marriage Service, in the church- 
ing of women, or by ministers assisting the Bishop in the office of 
Confirmation, in the Commination Service, or in the saying of the 
Litany, which in that Book was not connected with Matins or 
Evensong. These omissions, however, were filled up by the 
Advertizements issued under the Statute which provided that 
every minister saying any public prayers, or ministering the Sacra- 
ments, or other rites of the Church, should wear a comely surplice. 
If, therefore, the Act and the Advertizements are read in connec- 
tion with the Rubric, the use in the latter of the words " at all 
times of their ministration" may be justified: whereas those 
words are inaccurate if applied merely to the Prayer Book of 


The learned Counsel for the Appellant, in the 
Cosk>^' ^'""^ course of their argument, placed considerable reli- 
ance on passages in certain books published during 
the 1 8th, and in the present, centuries by writers who, however 
learned, were not entitled to speak with any legal authority, and 
some of whom appear to have expressed opinions adverse to the 
legality of the usage as to the vestures of clergymen, which they 
admit prevailed up to the time at which they wrote. 

It would, in the opinion of their Lordships, be contrary to well- 
settled principles of law to admit private opinions to control the 
legal interpretation of public documents, or legal inferences from 
public acts or usage ; but it may be not without advantage to point 
out the circumstances under which the opinions of these writers 
appear to have been expressed. 

One of the books referred to by the Appellant's Counsel was 
Doctor Thomas Bennet's "Paraphrase, with Annotations upon the 
Book of Common Prayer." The second edition of this book was 
published in 1709, and the earlier edition (the date of which their 
Lordships have not observed) must have been still nearer the year 
1662. Both editions were published before Cosin's Notes on the 
Prayer Book were printed, and their Lordships will, in the first 
place, refer to those notes, and to the writers who followed. 

Three sets of Notes on the Prayer Book (as it stood before 
1662), by Cosin, were published by NichoUs in 17 10, the first set 
being supposed to have been written by Cosin some time before, 
and the two others at different times after 1630, but all before the 
revision of 1662. 

In the first Notes* he had originally suggested that the clergy, 
as the law then stood, were " all still bound to wear albs and vest- 
ments, howsoever it was neglected; " and that the 14th and 58th 
Canons of 1603-4 were inconsistent with each other. But perceiv- 
ing some time afterwards (at what time afterwards is uncertain) that 
he had, in making that Note, overlooked the terms of the Statute 
(t Eliz., cap. 2, sec. 25), he added: " But the Act of Parliament, 

* Cosin's Works, vol. 5, p. 42. [Nicholls did not attribute the " First " 
series to Cosin : and they were certainly not his at all. SeeMeyrick's "Two 
Letters to the Abps. and Bps." (Rivingtons), and Chxirch Intelligencer, 
Vol III. p. 115.] 


I see, refers to the Canon, and until such time as other order shall 
be taken."* 

In another passage of the same set of Notes {Hid., p. 90), he 
had distinctly recognized the authority of those Articles of the 
Advertizements which relate to this matter, as a due exercise of 
the powers given to the Crown by that statute, with reference to a 
point which might depend on Section 26 rather than on section 25. 
" For cathedral churches,' he there says, ' It was ordained by the 
Advertizements in Queen Elizabeth's time (that authority being 
reserved, notwithstanding this book, by Act of Parliament), that 
there should be an Epistoller and Gospeller, besides the priest, &c." 
And, in the execution of his official duty as Archdeacon of the 
East Riding of York, in 1627, he administered to the churchwardens 
then under his jurisdiction very stringent articles (not adopted 
without change from forms previously in use, but revised and 
altered under his own hand), in which the use of the surplice by the 
parochial clergy, when administering the Sacraments, was treated 
as legally necessary, and never to be omitted. -f In his later Notes, 
and also in his suggested corrections of the Prayer Book, he repeated 
the view which had been expressed in the uncorrected form of his 
lirst Note, giving, however, no reason for that opinion, except such 
as may be inferred from a passage at p. 233 of vol. j of his "Works," 
where, after quoting the words of i Eliz., cap. 2, sec. 25, he says : 
" which other order, so qualified as is here appointed to le, was never 
yet made." 

From this it may be concluded that Cosin's opinion at that time 
was founded either on some technical view of the informality of 
the Advertizements, or on some conclusions as to matters of fact, 
with respect to which (as they involved no question of peculiar 
ecclesiastical learning) his authority was certainly not greater than 
that of any other man. 

After the Restoration, Cosin was made Bishop of Durham ; and 
in his Visitation Articles of 1662, already mentioned (which may 
be assumed, according to the Appellant's argument, to have been 
anterior to St. Bartholomew's Day in that year), he still considered 

* See his Correspondence published by the Surtees Society, vol. i, p. 106 ; 
and Preface ; also " Works," vol. 2, p. 9. 

t [This criticism was added by Cosin himself at a later date.] 



it to be liis duty to treat the use of the surplice in the administra- 
tion of both Sacraments as matter of legal obligation on all the 
parochial clergy. 

The result appears to be that the opinions recorded in the private 
Notes of this divine, at different periods of his life, are not con- 
sistent with each other; while those of them which are adverse to 
the validity of the Advertizements are inconsistent with his official 
acts done in the exercise of a legal jurisdiction, and in the discharge 
of his public duty, loth lefore and afterwards. 

The private Notes of Cosin, however, originally written before 
1662, and made known to the public half a century or more after 
they were written, appear to have been adopted without much 
examination by writers who have followed. Bishop Gibson, in the 
"Codex' published in 17 13, apparently echoing Cosin's words, 
says : — 

" Which other order (at least in the method prescribed by this 
Act) was never yet made ; and, therefore, legally '" [the italics are 
Gibson's], "the ornaments of ministers, in performing Divine 
Service, are the same now as they were in 2 Edw. VI." 

Burn, in his Ecclesiastical Law, follows Gibson, as Gibson had 
followed Cosin. Dr. Cardwell, the last author cited, erroneously 
supposed that there was a judicial decision which had established 
that an instrument under the Great Seal was necessary for a due 
execution of the Parliamentary power, and, for that reason, only, 
he concluded that the Book of Advertizements had not the force 
of law.* 

Their Lordships will now refer to the opinion expressed by the 
other author, Bennet, already mentioned, whose work was published 
before Cosin's Notes were made public. 

He statesf the Rubrics of i J49, 1559, and 1662, and then pro- 
ceeds thus : — 

" From hence it seems to follow that the present Rubric, and 
that of Queen Elizabeth, which are in effect the very same, do 1 estore 
those ornaments which were abolished by King Edward VI's Second 
Book, and which, indeed, have been disused ever since that time. 

* Cardwell, Confer., p. 38, note. [Compare above, p. 11.] 
t Paraphrases with Annotations upon the Book of Common Prayer, 2nd 
e lition, pp. 4, 5. 


But it must be considered that in the latter part of the Act of 
Uniformity, i Eliz., there is this clause (' until other order,' &c.) ; 
this clause explains Queen Elizabeth's Rubric, and, consequently, 
the present one, which is, in reality, the same. So that those 
ornaments of the Church and its ministry which were required in 
the second year of King Edward were to be retained till the Queen 
(and, consequently, any of her successors), with the advice before 
specified, should take other order. Now, such other order was 
accordingly taken by the Queen in 1564,* which was the seventh 
of her reign. For she did then, with the advice of her Ecclesiastical 
Commissioners, particularly the then Metropolitan, Dr. Matthew 
Parker, publish certain Advertizements, wherein are the following 
directions : " — 

[He then quotes the Advertizements, and afterwards states the 

"From hence 'tis plain that the parish priests (and I take no 
notice of the case of others) are obliged to use no other ornaments 
but surplices and hoods. For these are authentic limitations of the 
Rubric, which seems to require all such ornaments as were in use 
in the second year of King Edward's reign. Besides, since from 
the beginning of Giueen Elizabeth's reign down to our own times, 
the disuse of them has most notoriously been allowed ; therefore, 
though it were not strictly reconcilable with the letter of the Rubric, 
yet we cannot be supposed to be under any obligation to restore the 
use of them. And, indeed, if that practice which our Governors do 
openly and constantly permit and approve be not admitted for a 
good interpretation of laws, whether ecclesiastical or civil, I fear it 
will be impossible to clear our hands of many repugnances of 
different kinds besides this under debate." 

It only remains to consider the bearing on this part of the present 
case of the former decisions of the Judicial Committee in Liddell v. 
Westerton and Martin v. Mackonochie. 

As to Liddell v. Westerton, everything said and 

Liddell -v. tyesterton. , ., i-ii-ni-,-^ 

done m that case to which the Rubric of 1062 was 
material, had reference exclusively to ornaments of the church. 
The Court had "nothing to do with the ornaments of the minister or 

* li.e. 1564. Old Style. The date (Jan. 25, 1565, New Style) being that 
of the Queen's Letter, not of the Advertizements issued under it in the 
following year, 1566.] 



anything" appertaining thereto." — (Moore's separate Report, p, 31.) 
The questions whether the power of the Crown, under the ist 
Elizabeth, cap. 2, sec. 25, had ever beeij duly exercised, and (if so) 
with what effect ; whether the Rubric of 1662 was to be read with 
that section, as a law still in force, or not ; what would be the effect 
of so reading it, and whether any aid towards the solution of those 
questions might be derivable from usage, either before or after 1662, 
and what such usage had been, were none of them before Dr. 
Lushington, or the Court of Arches, or the Judicial Committee. It 
was not suggested that anything had ever been done under the ist 
Elizabeth, cap. 2, sec. 25, as to any " Ornaments of the Church."* 
Under these circumstances it was sufficient, as well as most con- 
venient, to refer to the Rubric, and to that alone; the effect of which 
was as to that matter, simply coincident, and identical with that of 
the section in the Act of Elizabeth, assuming it to be then in force. 

It is perfectly consistent that the Rubric should speak with the 
authority of the Statute, so far as the language and effect of both 
are identical, and yet should not supersede or control the operation 
of that part of the Statute which it does not in terms repeat. 

It is true that Dr. Lushington did, in more than one passage of 
his Judgment, signify his assent to what he described as the 

" Irresistible argument that the last Statute of Uniformity, by 
referring to the First Book of Common Prayer of Edward VI, excluded 
not only the Second Book but everything else effected in the interval 
between 1549 and 1662, whether by Act of Parliament or by Canon, 
which could or might have altered what existed in 1549; and, con- 
sequently, that nothing done from 1549 to 1662, however lawful during 
that period, had in itself force or binding authority after the Statute of 
1662 came into operation." 

Everything which fell from that very learned Judge is entitled to 
most respectful consideration ; but he had not been (as their Lord- 
ships now have been) upon the path of inquiry which was really 
necessary to support or to disprove that proposition. 

Nothing to the same effect is to be found in the Judgment of 
the Judicial Committee, which overruled that part of Dr. Lushington's 

* [This proceeds on the assumption that the " altar " of Edward's First 
Book was not an "ornament of the Church." It was held in Liddell v. 
Westerton to be illegal.] 


Judgment in which these dicta occur, reversing his decision and 
that of the Court of Arches as to the crosses not connected with 
the Communion Table ; and also rejecting as erroneous his view of 
the meaning of the words " ornaments of the church " as used in 
the Rubric ; which view had nevertheless been held in both the 
Courts below to be clear and indisputable. 

There is, however, in the Judgment of the Judicial Committee, 
delivered by Mr. Pemberton Leigh, the following passage, which 
has been much relied on by the Appellant : — 

" It will be observed that this Rubric (that of 1559) does not adopt 
precisely the language of the Statute, but expresses the same thing in 
other words. The Statute says: ' such ornaments of the church, and 
of the ministers thereof, shall be retained and be in use;' the Rubric 
' that the minister shall use such ornaments in the Church.' The 
Rubric to the Prayer Book of January i, 1604, adopts the language of 
the Rubric of Elizabeth. The Rubric to the present Prayer Book adopts 
the language of the Statute of Elizabeth. But they all obviously mean 
the same thing ; that the same dresses, and the same utensils, or 
articles which were used under the First Prayer Book of Edward VI, 
may still be used. None of them, therefore, can have any reference to 
articles tiot used in the services, but set up in churches as ornaments 
in the sense of decorations." 

This passage has been the subject, as it appears to their Lord- 
ships, of remarkable misconception. It was sufficient for the 
purpose of the question as to crosses then before the Judicial 
Committee, to consider only the meaning of the exact words of 
the Rubric itself, standing alone, and the words corresponding to 
them which were found in the Statute of Elizabeth and the 
Rubric of i.^jpp ; and to do this with a view only to the interpreta- 
tion of the two particular phrases, " ornaments of the church," and 
" by authority of Parliament in the second year of the reign of 
King Edward VI." For that purpose of verbal exposition the 
statement in this passage of the Judgment (with the exception of 
a somewhat inaccurate expression as to the Rubric of 1604) was 
unexceptionably correct. The words of the Rubric of 1662, 
standing alone, and the corresponding words in the Statute of 
Elizabeth and the Rubric of 1559 and 1604, do mean what is 
there stated, neither more nor less. In the Act of Elizabeth there 
are other and further words, the effect of which, if still in force, is 


in the present case very important ; but in that part of the judg- 
ment of Liddell v. JFesterton, any examination of the effect of 
those words, or of the questions arising out of them with reference 
to any ornaments of the ministers of the Church, would have been 
absolutely irrelevant, fudges tveigh their words tvith refer erice to 
the (juestions ivhich they have to consider, and not ivith reference to 
questions which are not before them. If what was then said could 
properly be applied to a purpose not then in contemplation, the 
statement that the words of the 25th section of the Act of 
Elizabeth, the Rubric of 1559 and 1604, and the Rubric of 1662, 
"all obviously mean the same thing," might more reasonably be 
alleged in proof that the Judicial Committee thought the words 
" according to the Act of Parliament set forth in the beginning of 
this Book," or the words " until other order taken therein," &c., 
were still implied at the end of the Rubric of 1662, than the 
succeeding words can be relied on to show that they held all the 
vestures of the clergy prescribed by the First Book of King Edward 
to be lawful at all the three epochs referred to — 1559, 1604, and 

With respect to the decision of the Judicial Committee in Martin 

V. Mackonochie little need be said. There, too, it 

Martinv. g sufficient to cousidcr the effect of the mere 


words of the Rubric of 1662, repeating (as it 
did) in 1662 the language of the Act of the first year of Elizabeth, 
on a point unaffected hy anything done in the meajitime. The 
points determined in Liddell v. lVesterto?i are succinctly stated, 
approved, and followed. There is no reference to the particular 
passage, in the judgment of Liddell v. IVesterton, on which the 
Appellant's Counsel rely; though, if there had been, their Lord- 
ships would have been of opinion, for the reasons already stated, 
that the present question would be in no way affected by it. 

Their Lordships, for these reasons, which, out of respect for the 
elaborate arguments so earnestly addressed to them, and not from 
any hesitation as to the decision at which they should arrive, they 
have expressed at a length greater than is usual, are of opinion 
that the decision of the learned Judge of the Arches Court as to 
the vestments worn by the Appellant, following that of this 
Committee in Hehhert v. Purchas, is correct, and ought to be 


Their Lordships will now proceed to consider the charge against 
the Appellant with reference to his position during the Prayer of 

The allegation upon that head is that the vVppellant, when 
officiating in the Service of the Holy Communion, 
PosmoN? unlawfully stood, while saying the Prayer of 

Consecration in the said Service, at the middle of 
the west side of the Communion Table, such Communion Table 
then standing against the east wall, with its shorter side towards 
the north and south, in such wise that during the whole time of 
his saying the said prayer he was between the people and the 
Communion Table, with his back to the people, so that the 
people could not see him break the bread or take the cup in 
his hand. 

The rule by which the position of the minister during the cele- 
bration of the Holy Communion is to be determined must be 
found in the Rubrical directions of the Communion Office in the 
Prayer Book, there being, as to this matter, nothing in any Statute 
to control or supplement those directions. 

In examining these directions, their Lordships propose to put 
aside the argument, very much pressed upon them, that the proper 
and only proper position for the Communion Table is in the body 
of the church, or in the middle of the chancel, and that it is in a 
wrong position when placed, at the time of the Communion 
Service, along the east wall. They think this argument has no 
sufficient foundatiun. No charge is made that in the church of the 
Appellant the Communion Table stood where it ought not to have 
stood, and, in the opinion of their Lordships, 710 such charge could 
have been sustained. 

The Rubric, indeed, contemplates that the Table may be 
removed at the time of the Holy Communion ; but it does not, in 
terms, require it to be removed. Morning and Evening Prayer are, 
according to one of the early Rubrics of the Prayer Book, to be 
used in the accustomed place of the church, chapel, or chancel. 
In churches where it is customary to use both the chancel and 
body of the church, or the chancel alone, for Morning and Evening 
Piayer, the direction that the Table shall stand " where Morning 
and Evening Prayer are appointed to be said," is satisfied without 
moving it. That direction cannot be supposed to mean that the 


position of the Table is to be determined by that of the minister's 
reading-desk or stall only, the service being "used" and "said" 
by the congregation as to the part in it assigned to them, as well as 
by the minister. The practice as to the moving or not moving the 
Table has varied at different times. It was generally, if not 
always, moved, in the earlier part of the post-Reformation period. 
When the revision of 1662 took place, and when the present 
Rubric before the Prayer of Consecration was for the first time 
introduced, it had come to be the case that the Table was very 
seldom removed. The instances in which it has been removed 
may be supposed from that time to have become still more rare : 
and there are now few churches in the kingdom in which, without 
a structural rearrangement, the Table could be conveniently 
removed into the body of the church. The utmost that can be 
said is, that the Rubrics are to be construed so as to meet either 

Their Lordships have further to observe that the Rubrics assume 
that, before the Prayer of Consecration is reached, those who 
intend to communicate will have drawn near to the Communion 
Table, wherever it may be placed, so as to concentrate the Com- 
municants near it or round it, and thus enable them to witness the 
ministration more easily than if they had remained in their places 
throughout the church. 

It is proper also to point out that the term "east" or "east- 
ward " nowhere occurs in the Rubrics. From the mention that is 
made of the north side, it seems to be supposed that in all churches 
that expression would represent a uniform position, and there is no 
doubt that from the almost universal eastward position of churches 
in England this would be the case ; but the north is the only point 
of the compass which is actually referred to. 

During several portions of the Communion office the minister is 
directed, either expressly, or by reference or implication, to stand at 
the north side of the Table. Where this is the case, their Lordships 
have no hesitation in saying that whether the table is placed altar- 
wise along the east wall, or standing detached in the chancel or 
church, it is the duty of the minister to stand at the side of the 
Table, which supposing the church to be built in the ordinary east- 
ward position, would be next the north, whether that side be a longer 
■jr shorter side of the Table. No doubt in a certain context the 


Meaning of word word " side " might be so used as to be shown /•// 
that context to be contra-distinguished from the top, 
or bottom, or end of a subject of quadrilateral or any other figure. 
But for this purpose a determining context is necessary. In the 
absence of such a context it is accurate, both in scientific and in ordi- 
nary language, to say that a quadrilateral table has Jour sides. In the 
Rubrics not only is there no context to exclude the application of 
that term to the shorter as well as the longer sides ; but the effect 
of the context is (as it appears to their Lordships) just the reverse. 
The direction is absolute, and has reference to one of the points of 
the compass, which are fixed by nature ; thejigure and the position 
of the Table are not Jixea either by nature or by law; and the 
purpose of the direction is to regulate, not one part or another oi the 
Table, but the position of the minister with reference thereto. Under 
these circumstances, it seems extravagant to put on the word 
"side," a sense more limited than its strict and primary one, for the 
purpose of suggesting difficulties in acting upon the rule, which 
for nearly two centuries were never felt in practice, and which would 
not arise if the strict and primary sense were adhered to. 

If it were necessary that there should be extracted from the 
Rubrics a rule governing the position of the minister throughout the 
whole Communion office, where no contrary direction is given or 
necessarily implied, the rule could not, in their Lordships' opinion, 
be any other than that laid down in Hebbert v. Purchas ; and they 
entertain no doubt that the position which would be required by that 
rule — a position, namely, in which the minister would stand at the 
north side of the Table, looking to the south — is not only lawful, 
but is that which would, under ordinary circumstances, enable the 
minister, with the greatest certainty and convenience, to J'ulfil the 
requirements of all the Rubrics. The case, however, with which 
their Lordships have to deal is one which may assume the character 
of a penal charge. It might be a penal charge against the present 
Appellant that he has stood, during the Prayer of Consecration, on 
the west side of the Table ; and on the other hand, on a construction 
of the Rubric the opposite of that contended for by the Respondents, 
a penal charge might be maintained against a priest who stood at 
the north side. It is therefore necessary to be well assured, both 
that there is a direction free from ambiguity that the priest should 
stand, during this particular Prayer, either at the north or at the 


west side, and also that no other test is supplied by the Rubric in 
question which would be a sufficient and intelligible rule for the 
position, at that part of the service, of the priest. 

Their Lordships have therefore to consider the precise wording 
of the Rubric preceding the Prayer of Consecration taken in con- 
nection with the Prayer itself. 

It is to be observed that the Revision in 1662 introduced for the 
first time the breaking of the bread as one of the manual acts to be 
done during the Prayer of Consecration, and that, although some of 
the other manual acts, namely, the taking the bread and the cup into 
the priest's hands, had been mentioned in the Rubric of the First 
Prayer Book of Edward VI. they had not been contained in the 
Second Prayer Book of that Sovereign, or in the Prayer Books of 
Elizabeth or James I. The Rubric " That he may with the more 
readiness and decency break the bread before the people," &c., was 
also new ; and it is not impossible that one of the reasons for its 
introduction may have been to meet one of the demands or sugges- 
tions of the Puritan party, who had proposed a form of service in 
which the priest was to be ordered to break the bread " in the sight 
of the people."* 

Their Lordships are of opinion that the words " before the 
people,'' coupled with the direction as to the manual acts, are meant 
to be equivalent to "iw the sight of the people.'^ They 
peopfe.''^ * ^ hvi\e no doubt that the Rubric requires the manual 

acts to be so done, that, in a reasonable and practical 
sense, the Communicants, especially if they are conveniently placed 
for receiving of the Holy Sacrament, as is presupposed in the office, 
may be witnesses of, that is, may see them. What is ordered to be 
done before the people, when it is the subject of the sense, not of 
hearing, but of sight, cannot be done before them unless those of 
them who are properly placed for that purpose can see it. It was 
contended that " before the people " meant nothing more than " in 
the church ;" to guard against an anterior and secret consecration 
of the elements. But if the words " before the people " were 
absent, the manual acts, and the rest of the service co///c^ no^be per- 
formed elsewhere than in the church, and in that sense coram populo, 
nor could the Sacrament be distributed except in the place and at 

* 4 Hall. Reliq. Liturg. [Card. Conf. 363, Kennel's Register, i. 585.] 


the time of its consecration ; and the argument would, therefore, 
reduce to silence the words " before the people," which are an 
emphatic part of the declaration of the purpose for which the 
preparatory acts are to be done. That declaration applies not 
to the service as a whole, nor to the consecration of the elements as 
a whole, but to the manual acts, separately and specifically. 

There is, therefore, in the opinion of their Lordships, a rule 
sufficiently intelligible to be derived from the directions which are 
contained in the Rubric as to the acts which are to be performed. 

The minister is to order the elements " standing 
eie^ments"^" """ ^^fore the Table ;" words which, whether the Table 

stands "altarwise" along the east wall, or in the 
body of the church or chancel, would be fully satisfied by his 
standing on the north side and looking towards the south ; but 
which also, in the opinion of their Lordships, as the Tables are 
now usually, and in their opinion lairfully, placed, authorize 
him to do those acts standing on the west side and looking" 
towards the east. Beyond this and after this there is no specific 
direction that, during this prayer, he is to stand on the west 
side, or that he is to stand on the north side. He must, in the 
opinion of their Lordships, stand so that he may, in good faith, enable 
the Communicants present, or the bulk of them being properly placed, 
to see, if they wish it, the breaking of the bread, and the per- 
formance of the other manual acts mentioned. He must not inter- 
pose his body so as intentionally to defeat the object of the Rubric 
and to prevent this result. It may be difficult in particular cases 
to say exactly whether this rule has been complied with ; hntwhere 
there is good faith the difficulty ought not to be a serious one ; and 
it is, in the opinion of their Lordships, clear that a protection was 
in this respect intended to be thrown around the body of the Com- 
municants, which ought to be secured to them by an observance of 
the plain intent of the Rubric. 

In applying these principles to the present case, their Lordships 
find that some difficulty has arisen from the circumstances under 
which the evidence was taken. The charge against the Appellant 
was a twofold one ; both that he had stood at the middle of the 
west side with his back to the people, and that the people could not 
see him break the bread or take the cup in his hand. The witness 
Nicholson undoubtedly states that, at the service of which he speaks. 


while sitting in the nave, he could not see the Appellant perform 
the manual acts ; and the witness Bevan gives evidence to the same 
effect. But with regard to Nicholson, he explains, as their Lord- 
ships understand his evidence, that, whether persons could see what 
the Appellant was doing would depend on whether they were sitting 
immediately behind him or were sittirtg on one side or the other ,- 
and with regard to Bevan, he states that, what would have prevented 
a man who sat at the side from seeing what the Appellant did, was, 
that he had on a chasuble, " which is a sort of cloak which spreads 
his body out." 

When the Appellant himself was examined, he does not appear 
to have been asked any question on the subject ; and the inference 
which their Lordships draw from the whole examination is, that 
inasmuch as at that time it was understood to be the law, founded 
on the decision in Hehhert v. Piirchas, that the standing on the west 
side of the Table was, of itself and without more, unlawful, neither 
party thought it important to carry the evidence with any precision 
beyond this point, the Respondents thinking they had established 
their case, and the Appellant not being prepared to dispute the fact 
of the position in which he stood. 

Their Lordships are not prepared to hold that a penal charge is 
established against the Appellant merely by the proof that he stood 
while saying the Prayer of Consecration at the west side of the 
Communion Table, without further evidence that the people could 
not, in the sense in which their Lordships have used the words, see 
him break the bread or take the cup into his hand, and they will 
therefore recommend that an alteration should be made in the decree 
in this respect. 

Their Lordships, before leaving this part of the case, think it 

right to observe that they do not consider the Judgment in the case 

of Martin v. Mackonochie to have any material bear- 

Mackonolhie. '"S ^'^ ^^^^ question now before them. The decision 

in that case was that the Priest must stand during 

the Prayer of Consecration, and not kneel during a part of it. The 

correctness of that decision has not been, and, as their Lordships 

think, cannot he, (juestlnned. Nothing is more clear throughout the 

Rubrics of the Communion office than that when the priest is 

mtended to kneel, an express provision is made on the subject. The 

conclusion, however, in Martin v. Mackonochie, is expressed, per- 


haps, more broadly than was necessary for the decision. What 
was obviously meant was that the posture of standing was to be 
continued throughout the whole of the prayer. Nothing was or 
could be decided as to the place in which the priest was to stand, 
for that question was not raised, and was not in any manner argued, 
in the case. 

Their Lordships will now proceed to the charge as to wafer or 

wafer-bread. The charge as to that is "that the 

Appellant used in the Communion Service and 

administration wafer-bread or wafers, to wit, bread or flour made 

in the form of circular wafers instead of bread such as is usual 

to be eaten." And this is traversed by the Appellant. 

It appears that the allegation is in the same form as that used in 
the Purchas Case ; but in that case the Defendant did not appear, 
and no criticism seems to have taken place as to the form of the 
allegation or its sufficiency. 

It is probable that the allegation was meant to raise the question 
as to the legality of the wafer, as distinguished from bread of the 
kind "usual to be eaten," and there are certainly some indications 
that the Appellant and his Counsel so understood, and meant to 
meet, the charge. 

A different view has, however, been taken by the Counsel for the 
Appellant on the Appeal, and they have maintained that there is 
no averment that the wafer, as distinguished from bread ordinarily 
eaten, was used. They contend that the charge goes to the shape, 
and not to the composition of the substance. 

Their Lordships are of opinion that this objection must prevail. 
The charge, in their opinion, is consistent with the possibility of it 
having been the fact that bread " such as is usual to be eaten," but 
circular, and having such a degree of thinness as might justify its 
being termed wafers, was what was used. And if this is what was 
used, their Lordships do not think it could be pronounced illegal. 

As, however, the question of the construction of the Rubric has 
been raised on this Appeal, as it was in the Purchas Case, their 
Lordships think it right to express their opinion upon it, at the 
same time that they give the Appellant the benefit of the ambiguity 
which exists in the form of the charge. 

It is to be observed that the Rubric does not in any part of it use 
the term "wafer." The words are "bread:" "bread such as is 


usual to be eaten," and "the best and purest wheat bread that con- 
veniently may be gotten." 

Their Lordships have no doult that a wafer in the sense in which 

the word is usually employed, that is, as denoting a 

ega . composition of flour and zvater rolled very thin and 

unleavened, is not "bread such as is usual to be eaten,'' or "the best 

and purest wheat bread that conveniently may be gotten.'' 

The only question on the construction of the Rubric is that raised 
upon the words " it shall suffice." 

There is no doubt that in many cases these words standing alone 
and unexplained by a context, would be quite consistent with some- 
thing different from, larger or smaller, more or less numerous, more 
or less costly, than what is mentioned, being supplied. 

Here, however, the sentence commences with the introduction : 
" To take away all occasion of dissension and superstition, which 
any person hath or might have concerning the bread, it shall suffice," 
See. These words seem to their Lordships to make it necessary 
that that which is to take away the occasion of dissension and 
superstition should be something definite, exact, and different from 
what had caused the dissension and superstition. If not, the 
occasion of dissension remains, and the superstition may recur. 
"To suffice," it must be as here described. What is substantially 
different will not "suffice." 

The Rubric, which orders that the bread and wine shall be pro- 
vided by the curate and churchwardens at the expense of the parish, 
seems to contemplate ordinary bread as the only material to be used, 
and the 20th Canon is still more precise in the same direction. 

The former Rubric (of 1552, 1559, and 1604) had said, " It shall 
suffice that the bread be such as is usually to be eateji at the table 
■with other meats, but the best and purest wheat bread that con- 
veniently may be gotten." Queen Elizabeth's Injunction of 1559 
on the same subject (in its form mandatory, and acted upon for 
many years afterwards) was issued when this Rubric had the force 
of law, and must be understood in a sense consistent with, and not 
contradictory* to, it. That Injunction distinguishes betweenf 

* [Abp. Parker held the Injunction to be a "further order" in 
Hmitation or restriction of the rubric under the 26th section of i Eliz. 
c. 2. See Parker Corr., p. 375.] 

f I Card. Doc. Ann., 202. 


"the sacramental bread" and "the usual bread and wafer, hereto- 
fore named singing cakes, which served for the xise of the private 
mass;" directing the former to be "made and formed plain, 
without any figure thereupon, and of the same fineness and fashion 
round" as the latter, but "to be somewhat bigger in compass and 
thickness." The form, and not the substance, is here regulated. 
To order the use of the suhstance properly called " umfer,'' which 
was not " bread such as is usual to be eaten at the table," ivould 
have leeii directly covtradictory to the Rubric ; and this cannot be 
supposed to have been intended. 

There was evidently " dissension " on this subject, and some 
diversity of practice in the reign of Elizabeth. It appears from 
passages in the Fourth Book of the " Ecclesiastical Polity,"* 
published in 1594, that Hooker considered the use, either of 
leavened or unleavened bread, to be at that time lawful. But the 
point was one as to which controversy then existed, and had given 
occasion to strife. In 1580, Chaderton, Bishop of Chester, acting 
as Commissioner in Lancashire, under the Crown, applied to the 
Privy Council for instructions as to " two special points worthy of 
reformation;" one of which was "for the Lord's Supper, with 
A^'afers, or with common bread." The Lords of the Council 
replied (26th July, 1580) that they thought both points ought to 
be referred to the consideration of Parliament; adding: — "In the 
meantime, for the appeasing of such division and bitterness as doth 
and may arise of the use of loth these kinds of bread, we think it 
meet, that in such parishes as do use the common bread;, and in 
others that embrace the wafer, they be severally continued as they 
are at this present. Until which time, also, your Lordship is to be 
careful, according to your good discretion, to persuade and procure 
a quietness amongst such as shall strive for the public maintaining 
either of the one or the other." (Peek's "Desiderata Curiosa/' 
p. 91.) 

In a later letter, the Bishop recurred to the same question, and 
was thus answered (21st August, 1580), by Lord Burghley and 
Sir Francis Walsingham : — " Concerning the last point of your 
letter, contained in a postscript, whereby appeareth that some are 
troubled about the substance oi the Communion bread, it were good 
to teach them that are weak in conscience, in esteeming of the 
* I Hooker's Works by Keble, 6th edition, pp. 449-451. 


wafer-bread, not to make difference. But, if their weakness 
continue, it were not amiss in our opinions, charitably to tolerate 
them, as children with milk. Which we refer to your Lordship's 
better consideration." {Ibid., p. 94.) 

In 1584, Bishop Overton, of Lichfield, issued an Injunction to 
the clergy of his diocese: — "That the Ordinance of the Book of 
Common Prayer be from henceforth observed in this, that the 
bread delivered to the communicants be such as is usual to be 
eaten at the table with other meats, yet of the purest and finest 
wheat 5 and no other bread to be used by the minister, nor to be 
provided for by the Churchwardens and parishioners, than such 
finest common bread." (Appendix to the 2nd Report of Rit. 
Comm., p. 430.) 

The 20th Canon of 1603-4, already mentioned, seems to have 
proceeded on the same viev/ of the law ; and, after the passing of 
that Canon, the usual form of inquiry in the Visitation Articles of 
Bishops and Archdeacons (e.g.. Archbishop Bancroft in 1605, 
Bishop Babington, of Worcester, in 1607 ; and Bishop Andrewes 
in 16 1 9), was, whether the churchwardens always supplied, for the 
Holy Communion, " fine white bread." 

The same form of inquiry continued to be generally used after 
the Rubric had been altered, upon the Revision of 1662, so as to 
express its purpose to be, "to take away all occasion of dissension," 
as well as of " superstition " (which alone had been previously 
mentioned). The same motive had been expressed in the Rubric 
of King Edward's First Prayer Book, " for avoiding all matters and 
occasion of dissension" ("superstition" not being then added); 
when the opposite course was taken, of requiring unleavened 
bread, of a certain form and fashion, to be everywhere and always 
used. The practice of using fine wheat bread such as is usual to 
be eaten, and not cake or wafer, appears to have been universal 
throughout the Church of England from the alteration of the 
Rubric in 1662, till 1840, or later. 

Their Lordships think that ij it had bee?i averred and proved that 
the wafer, properly so called, had been used by the Appellant, it 
would have been il/egal,hnt as the averment and proof is insufficient, 
they will advise an alteration of the Decree in this respect. 

There remains to be considered the charge as to the Crucifix. 
Crixifix. As to this the allegation is, that the Appellant 


unlawfully set up and placed upon the top of the screen 
separating the chancel from the body or nave of the church a 
crucifix and twenty-four metal candlesticks, with candles which 
were lighted on either side of the Crucifix. 

This charge was accompanied by two other charges, in respect 
of which the Appellant has been admonished to abstain from the 
acts complained of, and to this part of the monition he has 
submitted. One of these charges was for having formed and 
accompanied a procession from the chancel, down the north aisle 
and up the nave back to the chancel again, on the occasion of 
public service, those taking part in the procession at one time 
falling upon their knees, and remaining kneeling for some time. 
The other charge was the setting up, attached to the walls of the 
church, representations of figures, in coloured relief of plastic 
material, purporting to represent scenes of our Lord's Passion, and 
forming what are commonly called Stations of the Cross and 
Passion, such as are often used in Roman Catholic Churches. 

The learned Judge, whose decision is under Appeal, thus 
describes the Screen and Crucifix : — 

"There is a screen of open ironwork some 9 feet high stretching 
across the church at the entrance to the chancel ; the middle portion 
of this screen rises to a peak, and is surmounted by a crucifix or 
figure of our Saviour on the Cross in full relief and about 18 inches 
long — this is the crucifix complained of. The screen of course, from 
its position, directly faces the congregation, and the sculptured or 
moulded figure of our Lord is turned towards them. There is, further, 
a row of candles at distances of nearly a foot apart all along the top of 
the screen, which is continued up the central and rising portion of it, 
the last candles coming close up to the crucifix on either side, so that 
when the candles are lighted for the evening service, I should presume 
that the crucifix would stand in a full light." 

For the erection of this screen at the entrance of the chancel, in 
the form in which it is now found there, and surmounted by the 
crucifix in question, their Lordships think it clear that no faculty 
has been obtained. There is, indeed, a faculty, dated the 23rd of 
August, 1870, authorizing the building of "a dwarf wall with 
screen thereon of light ironwork between the chancel and the 
nave; " and this faculty appears to have been granted with 
reference to a ground plan annexed to the petition for the faculty ; 



whic^i ground plan specifies the place where this screen of light 
iroiiwork was to be erected. But no further information was given 
to the Ordinary of the character of the structure, much less of the 
iTucilix by which it was to be surmounted. 

Technically, therefore, it must be held that, in the absence of a 
proper faculty, the crucifix was unlawfully set up and retained. If, 
however, their Lordships were of opinion that the case was one in 
which, under all the circumstances, the Ordinary, on the application 
for a faculty, ought to grant, or might properly grant, a facult)-, the}' 
might probably have thought it right, before pronouncing any Judg- 
ment,to have given an opportunity to the Appellant to apply for a faculty. 

Their Lordships, however, are of opinion that under the 
No faculty could circumstances of this case, the Ordinary ought not 
be granted. ^^ grant a faculty for the crucifix. 

The learned Judge refers to two cases, decided by this Tribunal 
which have a material bearing upon the present question. 

The first of these was the case of Liddell v. IVesterton.* In 
this case, as the learned Judge states, the Court had to pronounce 
upon the legality of a Cross set up in Appellant's church. And 
it was decided that, although before the Reformation the symbol 
of the Cross had no doubt been put to superstitious uses, "yet 
that Crosses, when used as mere emhlenis of the Christian faith, 
and not as objects of superstitious reverence, may still lawfully be 
erected as architectural decorations,'' and that the wooden cross 
erected in that particular case '"' was to be considered a mere 
architectural ornament." 

The Court determined nothing directly as to the legality of a 
crucifix, but was at great pains throughout the Judgment to point 
out that crosses were to be distinguished from crucifixes, saying 
that "there was a wide difference between the Cross and images 
of saints, and even, though in a less degree, between a Cross and 
a crucifix," the former of which, they said, had been " used as a 
symbol of Christianity two or three centuries before either 
crucifixes or images were introduced." 

The other case is that of Philpotts v. Boyd.f As to this case, 
the learned Judge states that this Tribunal, in justifying the 
erection of the Exeter reredos, adhered entirely and very distinctly 

* Moore's Special Report. f 6 L. R. Pr. C. Ap. 435. 


to the pcjsition taken up in the previous case, and pronounced that 
erection lawful, though it included many sculptured images, on 
the express grountl " that it had been set up for the pitr/josc i>J' 
decoration only,'' declaring that it was "' not in danger of being 
abused," and that " it was not suggested that any superstitious 
reverence has been, or is likely to be, paid to any of the figures 
upon it. " 

The learned Judge then proceeds to consider whether it would 
be right to conclude that the crucifix in the present case was set 
up for the purposes of decoration only ; whether it is in danger 
of being abused, or whether it could be suggested that superstitious 
reverence had been, or was likely to be, paid to it. 

The learned Judge states that the crucifix, as formerly set 
Special history "P ""^ "^'" churclies, had a special history of its 

ot Crucifix. OWn 

He refers to the Rood ordinarily found before the Reformation 
in the parish churches of this country, which was, in fact, a 
crucifix with images at the base, erected on a structure called the 
rood loft, traversing the church at the entrance to the chancel, and 
(occupying a position not otherwise than analogous to that which 
the iron screen does in the present case. 

He refers to the evidence as to the preservation of the crucifixes 
or roods during the reign of Queen Mary, and of their destruction, 
as monuments of idolatry and superstition, in the reign (jf 

He takes notice of a letter of Bishop Sandys in 156 1 in the 
" Zurich Letters," first series, p. 73, in which he states : — 

■' We had not long since a controversy respecting images. 
The Queen's Majesty considered it not contrary to the Word of 
God, nay, rather for the advantage of the Church, that the image 
of Christ crucified, together with Mary and John, should be 
placed, as heretofore, in some conspicuous part of the church 
where they might more readily be seen by the people. Some of 
us thought far otherwise, and more especially as all images of 
every kind were at our last a isitation not only taken down, but 
also burnt, and that too, by public authority, and because the 
ignorant and superstitious multitude are in the halit oj paijing 
adoration to this idol above all others.' 

The learned Judge arrives at the conclusion that the crucifix so 

75 * 


placed formed an ordinary feature in the parish churches before 
the Reformation, and that it did so, not as a mere architectural 
ornament, but as an object of reverence and adoration. 

He further points out that the worship of it was enjoined in the 
Sarum Missal, in which the order of service for Palm Sunday ends 
with the adoration of the Rood by the celebrant and choir before 
passing into the chancel. And to this reference might be added 
one to the order for the Communion according to the Hereford 
use, in which there is a prayer with this introduction : — 

" Postea sacerdos adorans crucifixum dicat." 

Proceeding then on these considerations, and dealing with a 
church in which was found not merely an illuminated crucifix, 
but also those stations of the cross and other acts in the conduct 
of the services, the illegality of which the Appellant does not 
challenge in his Appeal, the Judge continues thus : — 

" It is no doubt easy to say, what proof is there of idolatry 
now ? What facts are there to point to a probability of ' abuse ?' 

" But when the Court is dealing with a well-known sacred 
object — an object enjoined and put up by authority in all the 
churches of England before the Reformation, in a particular part 
of the church and for the particular purpose of ' adoration ' — 
when the Court finds that the same object, both in the church 
and out of it, is still worshipped by those who adhere to the 
unreformed Romish faith, and when it is told that, now, after a 
lapse of three hundred years, it is suddenly proposed to set up 
again this same object in the same part of the church as an archi- 
tectural ornament only, it is hard not to distrust the uses to which 
it may come to be put, or escape the apprehension that what begins 
in 'decoration ' may end in ' idolatry.' 

'* If this apprehension is a just and reasonable one, then there 
exists that likelihood and danger of ' superstitious reverence ' which 
the Privy Council in Phi/potts v. Boyd pronounced to be fatal to 
the lawfulness of all images and figures set up in a church." 

In these observations of the learned Judge their Lordships 
concur j and they select them as the grounds of his decision which 
commend themselves to their judgment. They are prepared 
under the circumstances of this case, to affirm the decision 
directing the removal of the crucifix, while at the same time they 
desire to say that they think it important to maintain, as to 


representations of sacred persons and objects in a church, the 
liberty estabhshed in Philpotts v. Boyd, subject to the power and 
duty of the Ordinary so as to exercise his judicial discretion in 
granting or refusing faculties, as to guard against things likely to 
be abused for purposes of superstition. 

On the whole, therefore, their Lordships will humbly recommend 
Her Majesty to affirm the Decree of the Court of Arches except 
as regards the position of the minister and the use of wafer-bread 
or wafers ; and as to these excepted matters they will humbly 
advise Her Majesty that inasmuch as it is not established to their 
satisfaction that the Appellant, while saying the Prayer of Conse- 
cration, so stood that the people could not see him break the bread 
or take the cup into his hand, as alleged in the representation; and, 
inasmuch as it is not alleged or proved that what was used by him 
in the administration of the Holy Communion was other than 
bread such as is usual to be eaten, the decree of the Court of 
Arches should be in these respects reversed. And they will 
further humbly advise Her Majesty that in respect of the charges 
as to which the Decree is reversed, the costs in the Court of Arches 
should be paid by the Respondents to the Appellant j and further 
that there should be no costs of this Appeal. 

To lie obtaincil at the offico of tho Church Association, 14, Buckingham Street, Strand, 
hoiiiloii, at the inice of %-i eacli. 
4th. Thousand..] 





The Church of England; 





Author of " The Legal HUtory of Canon Stubbs." 





No. CXI.l 


This Paper is intended to bring out some points loliich may he 
new to many friends of the English Reformation : — 

1. Tliat the Canon Law and the " Spiritual " {i.e. Clerical) Courts 

were not directly included in the " Eeformation." 

2. The exceptional and irregular importance of a Judicature, which 

has to apply and enforce a system of obsolete bye-laws o£ 
alien origin and Trades-unionist character. 

3. The consequent danger of leaving the enforcement of such bye- 

laws to the " personal " discretion of Bishops without legal 
training or judicial experience, who are themselves guided by 
(so-called) Theological "experts" or Syuodical {i.e. clerical) 

'0 put an end to litigation, and to secure order in any 
society, it is before all things necessary that its laws 
should be intelligible and consistent, that the remedies 
and protection which they afford should be available 
to all its mejiibers without respect of persons, that 
procedure should be simplified, and that punishment 
for wilful disobedience be made swift and inevitable. 
Every one of these conditions of a healthy judicature was 
absent from the scheme put forth by the Royal Commission of 

Unfortunately, at the Reformation, no fonnal rectification of 
the canon law was effected, although almost every portion of it 
was tainted by the spirit of the Papacy, by theocratic theories of 
Church government, by superstitious regulations as to Chiirch 
rites, or by vexatious meddling with the domestic relations of 
individual life. 

With that practical shrewdness, but halting logic, which is said 
to be characteristic of Englishmen, we were content to amend the 
standards of doctrine, and to reform the ritual and service books, 
while placing upon the basis of " Royal supremacy " the already 
existing courts clerical side by side with other "departmental " 
branches of the administration of justice by the Crown. This 
done, the business of adapting the old wine-skins of canon law 
and ecclesiastical procedure to the new wine of a reinstated 
Gospel, a purified worship, and a married clergy, was left to be 
worked out, as best it might, by the courts themselves. Under 
these circumstances, it is obvious that the constitution and 
power.s of tlie ecclesiastical courts become of the utmost impor- 

tance, because it rests with these courts to dcchare whether any 
portion of the canon law which may be alleged in a given case 
is or is not " law." 

Lord Chief-Justice Holt said " one-half of what one finds in 
Lyndwood is not the law of the land." * And Sir W. Scott 
referi-ed to a canon of Abp. Peckham's as one of " the older 
canons, which perhaps can hardly be considered as carrying 
with them all their first authority " and declined accordingly to 
act upon it.f 

Lord Denman said, " the Canon law is not part of the law of 
England, unless it is made so by authority of Parliament here, 
or by ancient and uninterrupted use and acknowledgment. The 
burden of proving that a particular part of that law is the law 
of England rests with those ivJio assert it to be so. "J 

Various expedients were adopted for reducing this chaotic 
system (or rather congeries) of unreformed bye-laws into toler- 
able accordance with the law of the land. The most ancient 
expedient was the power of ProJiihitton, of which Lord Cockburn 
said : — 

" The fact is, we have a clioioe of evils. We must either leave the 
ecclesiastical judges to administer a law tvhich is not the general law 
of the land without appeal or control, or we must subject them to the 
supervision and direction of the great judicial functionaries of equity 
and law." (Letter to Lord Penzance, p. 28.) 

Another expedient has been to remove entire departments of 
social life from the jurisdiction of the spiritual courts — as, e.g. 
marriage, schism, brawling, wills, &c. Next, to iutx'oduce lay 
judges, and to assimilate the procedure of these courts to that of 
the ordinary "secular" tribunals; but, above all, to subordinate 
the whole hiei'archy of the " courts spii"itual " to a Court of 
Appeal consisting of the highest legal functionaries, whose minds, 
having been soaked in a wholly different set of traditions, must 
needs bring any judgment which they deliver into accord with 
the received principles of National law, and the received rules of 

Whether it might not have been wiser to have codified and 
recast the entire canon law is a matter which I leave to 
theorists. But, assuredly, until it has been so recast, the adminis- 
tration of uni-eformed canon law cannot be safely entrusted to 
courts purely clerical. The character of recent episcopal 
appointments ; the tone and temper of the clergy, who, as a 

* Rex V. Raynes, 1 Lord Eaymoid, 363. 

+ BHr(jess v. Burgess, 1 Hagg. Consist. Kep. p. 393, cf. Gilbert v. Buzzard, 
1 Hagg. Cons. Bep. 355. 

As to the supx^osed Parliamentary authority of canon law, see Tract on 
" The lleservation of the Host," p. 7. The argument is exhaustively dealt with 
by Dr. Archibald J. Stephens in the Second lleport of the Eitual Commission, 
Appendix, p. 342. 

J "Case of Dr. Hampden," p, 211. (Bell and Daldy.) 

liody, seem to be yeai'ning foi* a revival of their ancient supremacy 
over the mere laity, who by ancient Canon Law are their 
•'subjects,"* together with the steady growth of magical views 
:is to the nature of the sacraments, and of sacrificial theories as 
to the nature of an Atonement still in process of being eked out 
by priests who " stand daily ministering oftentimes the same 
sacrifice;" these, as parts of a general recrudescence ofmediteval 
ideas, should make us dread to entrust to courts manned 
exclusively by clergymen the administration of a system of 
clerical bye-laws derived by " historic continuity " from the 
darkest of dark ages. 

For, remember, it is now claimed that " the common law of 
the church " ought to be held equally authoritative with canon 
or statute law. " How,' says Mr. Spencer Holland, ' can a 
purely legal court deal with matters not susceptible of legal 
terminology, and requiring for their interpretation inquiries 
outside the mere formularies, or Parliamentary statutes affecting 
them ? " (Summary, p. 46.) He twice over quotes and adopts 
the language of Mr. Berdmore Compton. (Report of Eccl. 
Courts Commission, vol. ii. p. 121, Q. 2776), " that in deciding- 
cases of doctrine a spiritual court would be obliged to go 
outside the formularies of the Church of England, which ai-e 
altogether insufficient to determine a question of doctrine. It 
would have to consider the great common law of the Chui'ch." 
What that means may be judged of by the two illustrations 
which Mr. Berdmore Compton gave to the Commissioners, viz. 
that reception of the mixed chalice would be compulsory upon 
the laity (Q. 2784), and that a minister should be triable by 
"a court martial system,' for ' conduct unbecoming a priest" 
(Q. 2744). 

Mr. Finlason (who, among lawyers, shares Avith Dr. Phillimore 
Mr. Holland's dislike of the Judicial Committee of Privy Council) 
speaksf of the conflict between 

'• The principle of Ecclesiastical authority, or traditional belief, 
and that of national opinion and positive law as representing it; the 
one retaining all the old doctrine and ritual, except so far as it had 
hoeu expressly altered ; the other discarding all, except what was 
expressly retained . . . when the controversy should come into 
thf courts of law the result would depend,' he says, ' upon the 
eliaracter of the judicature, for upon that would depend the principle 
of interpretation adopted.''^ 

=' " Subditos." See " Jurisdiction in the Confessional," by the Eev. 
Edmund G. Wood, m.a. (Knott : 26, Brooke Street, E.G.) 

-\ " History, Constitution, and Character of the Judicial Committee of 
Privy Council," p. 67. 

I See "Legal History of Canon Stubbs " (Stanford), p. 68. and note 
p. 69. "As to these constitutions . . . they must be taken, if of force at 
the time of passing of omj of the Acts of Uniformity, to have been repealed 
by those Acts." — I'. C. Judgment in Martin v. Maclamochie, p. 20. 

Hence he complains both of the decisions and of the reasons 
given for them by the Judicial Committee, as 

" Plainly indicating that the Judicial Committee had adopted the 
popular view of the Reformation ... so that on the one hand 
notliing is lu'cscribed to the clergy as to doctrine, but what is laid 
down for them in the fornudaries, and that on the other hand nothing 
is allowed as to ritual which is not pi'escribed."— (p. 111.) 

Instead of this Protestant and merely " legal " standard, we 
are bidden to rely upon the personal "discretion" of the bishops. 
The Royal Commissioners tell us (Report, page lii.), that they 
" desii-e to recognise as a ininciiile that the judicial authority in 
the court of the bishop resides in, and should be exercised by the 
bishop himself." Bp. Stubbs in the Appendix (p. 45, col. ii,, 
compared with 40, col. ii.), tells us that a bishop ought not to 
be bound by the precedents of Ids oivn court, and in his evidence 
he testified that before the Reformation "a great deal of loose 
matter" was imported into doctrinal cases (Q. 1138), and that 
" all things were conducted in a looseish sort of way" (Q. 1141). 
which he apologises for by saying that " the great object was to 
convert the man, and an immense number of them did in fact 
recant " (Q. 1142). Most of those, in fact, who were burned at 
the stake had in this way been previously induced to " recant,'" 
which they did, of course, insincerely, like the Moors in 

Mr. Berdmore Compton told the Commission of 1883, " wc- 
must be satisfied with a rougher kind of justice altogether, 
something probably like going back to Pi^imitive precedent, 
something like the justice administered for a diocese by the 
bishop in Synod,"* "for,' he adds, 'cases which affect ritual 
and the divine law should be entirely reserved to the clergj- " 
(Q. 2666). The /or?(m domesticiwi of the bishop is described in 
the Report of the Royal Commission on Eccl. Courts of 1832 
(p. 54) as under " little restraint from the forms observed in 
contentious suits in courts of Justice." 

You must be better able to judge than I, how far minorities 
among the clerg}^ would be likely to get an "indifferent" 
administration of justice under a system of " Personal " Courts 
and "Sacred Synods;" but, as a layman, I may be permitted to 
say that a parallel proposal to commit secular causes to the 
individual discretion of the Sovereign, as being " the Lord's 
anointed," who should "sit in the gate" to administer justice 
direct from the fountain head, her assessors having "no voice in 
any decision " (as the Commissioners carefully provide), and 
this on the ground of " histoi-ic continuity " with Primitive 

* Diocesan Synods had no such " jurisdiction " till the fourth century 
See Eeport Eccl. Courts Commission, vol. ii. ; Bright, Q. 5433; Jenkins, 
Q. 2910-13. " rrimitive," i.e. four centuries after Christ I 

times, ■when appeals were unknown,* would be univei"sally 
regarded as the very height of midsummer madness. 

As the Dean of Arches pointed out (Report, p. Ixvi.), " It 
is to be apprehended that a bishop would not be careful to 
follow decided cases, with which, perhaps, he would be little 
familiar ; that he would be apt to import into his enunciation of 
law considerations of policy and the elasticity of discretion, Avhile 
in controversial matters of doctiine there would be room for the 
apprehension that he might bring to judicial decision opinions 
already formed, and perhaps strongly held on one side or other 
of the controversy." 

I ask you to take note of the fact that the Report marks a 
new departure. For the first time since the Reformation, we 
have the theory put forth that the Crown is not the source of 
ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and that bishops' courts are entirely 
independent of the Crown, so that Canon (now Bishop) Stubbs 
even affirms that no appeals in heresy went even to the Delegates. 
This discovery has been hailed with rapture by the English 
Church Union, as furnishing a new " historical " basis for their 
theocratic ideal of priest-rule. It is, however", not founded in fact. 
Bp. Wolton wrote in 1581 to Lord Burleigh about " one 
Anthony Randal, late parson of Lydford in my diocese ; whom 
I justly deprived for his damnable opinions and heresies. And 
after his appeal fi'om nie to the Arches, and from thence to 
Her Majesty's Delegates, I had my proceedings approved and 
ratified " (Strjpe, Ann. III-ii-180). Mr. Lewis in his " Refor- 
mation Settlement " (published by Elliot Stock) observes, " We 
have also the deprivation by the Delegates, on May 22nd, 1617, 
of M. Mady, I'ector of Blagdon, for grave crimes and excesses ; 
on April 29th, 1619, of J. Eaton, Vicar of Wickham Market, 
for heresy (nounullos et varios errores, falsasque opiniones) : 
on February 13th, 1623, of J. Newton, parson of Havordstocke, 
for non-conformity (inconformem regimini et ritibus Ecclesiae 
Anglicanfe incorrigibilem) just Bp. King's case ; and in 1624, of 
Samuel Earle, rector of Thoydon Garnon " (pp. 284, 300, 365). 
Nevertheless, this unhistorical assumption is not only the most 
important portion of the Blue-book issued by the Commissioners, 
but is being made the basis of attempts at reactionary legislation. 

Now, the assumption that two independent sources of juris- 
diction co-exist side by side involves the idea that the Church 
is a " Kingdom " of the same kind with (though differing in its 
objects from) the other "kingdoms of the world." The words 
"Render unto Caesar," &c., are sometimes urged as though they 
were designed to exempt the clergy from the control of law, 
whereas it was " Cfesar " who, in this department, was entitled 
the " Minister of GoH ; " and it was in rebuke of theocratic 

* " There M'as no propei provision for appeal in the Secular Laws." — 
Stubbs' Historical Appendix, p. 23, col. ii. Compare Finlason, pj). 2, 37, 71. 

pretensions on the part of a divinely-accredited clergy that the 
•words were originally tittered. Can any arrogance, therefore, 
be more unseemly than to allege that " render unto God '' 
means " render to the clergy the things that are God's " ? 

Some men seem to fancy that the voting power of clerical 
majorities will, in some supei'natural way, enable us to command 
an inspired judgment. Yet how slender is the security thus 
afforded as witnessed by Air. Berdmoi'C Compton himself. 

" Q. 2845. Then it might happen in a Synod that the arguments 
would be on one side, and votes on the other? Yes. 

" Q. 2846. And do you think the general effect of such a judg- 
ment as that decided by a small majority against what would appear 
to he the weiglit of argument would carry satisfaction with it.'' ^o." 

Confusion arises from forgetting that litigation in courts 
cannot possibly determine the truth or falsehood of dogma. 

Courts as courts, and judges adjudges, can never be the ulti- 
mate referees in the region of metaphysics. Would anyone alter 
one iota of his creed in consequence of the findings of any 
" court," even if it consisted of the five CEcumenical Patriarchs ? 
If not, why not? The answer to that quest'oii will show that 
courts, however, entitled " spiritual," can deal only with the 
temporal accidents of spiritual things — benefices, endowments, 
freehold tenure of Church buildings, parochial limits, exclusive 
powers of officiating in given edifices and within given areas, &c. 
These, and all such things as these, though called " spiritual," 
are really "secular," belonging, that is, to the material world 
and to this present life, and by divine right, therefore, under 
the dominion of the civil ruler. If our minds get clear on this 
point, we shall see, I think, that all jurisdiction belongs from 
its very nature* to " Caesar." The Church militant (like its 
Divine Master, when He trod this earth) has, and can have, no 
protection from injustice, and no exclusive privileges within the 
limits of the world of sense, except such as are granted by, and 
are dependent upon, " Csesar." By " Csesar " I mean, of course, 
the civil ruler, whether crowned or not ; for, as St. Peter tells 
us, the form of government is a mere " ordinance of man." 
To the " powers that be " (i.e. to the de facto ruler) " jurisdic- 
tion " belongs by a right every whit as " divine " as though it 
were wholly supernatural. It is time that we should seriously 
reconsider the whole question of Church Reform, without 
troubling our heads as to a pedantic following of precedents, or 
as to the " historic continuity " — upon Avhich the Commissioners 
insisted (when it happened to suit their immediate purpose) — 
with times wholly wnlike our own. Whether we regard the 
monopoly of learning by the Clergy, the social conditions 

* Jurisdiction is the power {jicris dicendi, i.e.) of defining those correlative 
rights and obligfttions which are the creations of law. Even Mr. Finlason 
(before he joinod the Church of Borne) recognised this. Pp. 3, 32, 74, cfec. 


resulting from onr complex civilisation, or tlie received beliefs 
and practices of our jjeople, the last three hundred years have 
witnessed changes as vast and vital in the Church of England 
as in any other institution. Is it not unreasonable, therefore, to 
2)erpetuate a system of Canon Law which in the sixteenth centurj- 
was formally declared by the Convocations, the Parliament, and 
the King, to be " much prejudicial to the King's prerogative 
royal, repugnant to the laws and statutes of the realm, and 
overmuch onerous to the King's Highness and his subjects.""* 
Yet the Royal Commissioners in their Report (1883) did not so 
much as bint at the existence of an evil which successive Royal 
Commissions under three of our monarchs tried in vain to 
grapple with ! If I mistake not, an attempt to enforce this 
Canon Law by means of Clerical Courts, duly graduated from 
" Sacred Synods " down to Archdeacons' " Visitations," is now 
being organised. The Evangelical Clergy will do well to open 
their eyes to the fact that their only hope of continued " liberty 
of prophesying " lies in a close alliance with the laity, from 
whom alone they can hope to obtain a fair hearing, and any 
real help in the day of battle. Students of the Epistles of 
Clement of Rome — the first Pope, they say, and therefore an 
infallible guide (?) — or that of Polycarp, or the newly published 
" Teaching of the Apostles " (Cap. xiv., xv.) will not fail to 
perceive, what Tertullian also witnesses, that Church discipline 
in primitive times was not regarded as " residing in the Bishop,"' 
but as residing in the Church.f For, as Hooker (Eccl. Pol. viii. 
vi. 3) reminds us, " Those persons excepted which Chi-ist Him- 
self did immediately bestow such power upon, the rest succeeding 
have not received potver as they did, Christ bestowing it upon 
their persons ; but the power which Christ did institute in the 
Church, they from the Church do receive." 

The voice of the "Church" can never be heard while the 
laity are unheard. No mere Canons, though passed by both 
Convocations, can ever " bind " the laity in foro conscientire, 
because based on the fundamental falsehood that the clergy are 
the "Church," and that they alone have "the mind of the 

* 25 Henry VIII. c. 19, sec. 1. Cf. Eepoit. Hist. App., pp. 71 and 92. 
t The passages are given at length in "Liberalism in the Priests' Craft," 
by the writer of the paper. (Marlborough & Co., 51, Old Bailey. Price M.) 

To be obtained at the Office of the Church Association, 14, Buckingham Street, Straud, 
W.C., at the price of bd per dozen or 3s per 100. 



U. ............ nn ... g^j^^gj) ^^p|^^|gj|,f ., 









Author of " The Legal History of Canon Stubbs." 





Ko. CXII.l 

" Are we anxious to make an offering for others hei-.ides ourselves ? No 
single Eucharist can be celebrated anywhere without affecting the well- 
being of the whole Church, since it is the offering of the merits of Him who 
died not for a favoured few but for all. 

" Do we desire to make atonement for past sin ? Here we may offer 
before the Father the blood of the Victim whose death has made a perfect ■ 
expiation for the sins of the whole world. 

" Are we troubled about those who in the shadow of death are awaiting 
the judgment ? The blood of the Sacrifice reaches down to the prisoners of 
hope, and the dead as they are made to possess their old sins in the darkness 
of the grave, thank us as we offer for them the Sacrifice which restores to light 
and immortalitlj.'^—" The Priesthood of the Laity." A paper read by the Hon. C. L. Wood 
(President of the English Church Union), at the ISth Anniversary of the C.B.S., 18S0. 


l-TtoN 1885 the Bishops of both Convocations iinanimously 
L resolved that " no reservation of the Sacrament for 
any purpose is consistent with the rule of the Church 
of England." 

After two years of preparation a reply was issued 
on the part of the C.B. S. by one of its members, the 
Rev. J. W. Kempe,^ who explains that " some requests 
there are which have the imperative nature of commands;" and 
dedicates his book accordingly to Canon Carter, the Superior of 
the Confraternity, who has written a preface to the Manifesto. 
As Mr. Carter was made a Canon by his Bishop, and has been 
three times sheltered from pi'osecution by the episcopal veto, 
the Bench of Bishops ought assuredly to feel the responsibility 
laid upon them by this official pronouncement. 

Mr. Kempe explains his standpoint as one of regret that 
" External intercommunion between ourselves and the rest of 
Catholic Clu-istendom has been unhappily suspended," also that 
" men's minds should bo biassed by insular considerations," so that 
" English Christianity has drifted into a form of religionism which is 
in marked contrast with that faith and worship . . . which in its lead- 
ing characteristics has become traditional throughout the greater part 
of the Christian world" (p. 2). For, the Church of England is only 
" entitled to our allegiance in virtue of lier organic xmity with the 
Church of God throughout the world" (p. 183). 

It is obvious therefore that unless the Church of England 
conforms herself to the rest of Western Cliristendom {i.e. to the 
Church of Rome), her ' insular ' position releases Mr. Kempe's 
conscience from even the pretence of loyalty. He boasts that (in 
despite of the Anglican Bishops) " reservation is unobtrusively 
but widely practised" (p. 100). There is only one point on 
which he at all demurs to the practice of the Church of Rome, 
viz. the denial of the cup to the laity at public celebrations in 
church, and in those few cases in which he would still tolerate^ 

1 " Reservation of the Blessed Sacrament for the Sick and Dying, by the 
Rev. J. W. Kempe, m.a. : with Preface by the Rev. T. T. Carter, m.a." 
(G. J. Pahner.) 

2 So Mr. Blunt in his "Annotated Prayer Book," p. 290, teaches that " the 
celebration of the Holy Communion in a room used for ordinary Hving, and 
on a table used for meals, or other domestic purposes, is a practice which it 
is difficult to guard from irreverence and from dishonour towards so holy a 
sacrament." The " Carpenter's Son " is supposed to shrink from the 
" domestic " life of the poor as though it " defiled the man." Mr. Kempe 
(p. 15) further insists upon " vessels of precious metal, and at least a surplice 
and stole " as essential to a private celebration, though the First Prayer 
Book of Ed. VI. provided that " in all other places, every minister shall be at 
liberty to use any surplice, or no." 


celebrations in private houses. But he is very careful to argue 
that reservation of the wafer alone, without anr wine, is even 
now binding by law in every parish church (p. 184), "so that 
all graces necessary to salvation may be conveyed to all " by 
the wafer alone (p. 116). He thinks this half-communion is 
"primitive" and "really coeval with Christianity itself" 
(p. 118), insomuch that 

" It was only exceptionally administered to the sick under the species 
of wine, viz. in cases where, by reason of infirmity, the sick were 
unable to swallow the consecrated bread. Thus, the Fourth Council 
of Carthage ordained that ' the Eucharist be jio^red into the mouth ' 
of any who may be afflicted with frenzy" (p. 118). 

He declares that this half-communion " continues to be autho- 
rised under the established order of this Church and Realm " 
(p. 126). 

" And therefore that the canouieal rule of reserving ' the Sacrament 
of the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ ... in a decent 
Tabernacle, over against the High Altar,' as enjoined by Bp. Tunstall, 
in conformity with the Provincial Constitution (s?/i panis latibulo), 
under the species of bread, still holds good, as expressing the eccle- 
siastical law of England " (p. 185). 

He repeats this, p. 129. The words " sub panis latibulo " (i.e. 
"under covert of the bread ") are variously paraphrased by Mr. 
Kem])e as "under the species" and "in His Sacrament;" as 
though even Mr. Kempe were ashamed of the naked indecency 
of speaking of "the King of Glory " as lurking in a processional 

Nevertheless he quotes, as binding, a Constitution of the 
Minorite Friar Peccham (whom the Pope made Abp. of Canter- 
bury), ordering a light and a bell to be borne before the stoled 
priest who carries the Host to the sick in order that the people 
may prostrate themselves "wherever the King of Glory happens 
to be carried about under his lurking place of the bread " 
(ad prosternendmn se ubicuiKj^iie Rcgem Glorice sub i^anis latibido 
evenerit deportari) ! And this precious Constitution, Mr. Kempe 
thinks, is binding now both in law and conscience upon every 
])riest of the Church of England (pp. 23, 54, 94). Whereas the 
Royal Injunction of 1549 relating to the Prayer Book of that 
year ordered — "That going to the sick with the sacrament the 
Minister have not with him either light or bells."" 

* * 

What concei'ns English Churchmen more than the Popish 

beliefs and practices of members of the C. B. S. is their habit of 
tampering with evidence, of misrepresenting 'authorities,' of 
gai'bling quotations, and of giving strained and non-natural 
interpretations to rubrics written " for the better direction of 
them that are to officiate in any part of Divine service." Witli 
examples of each of these literary offences Mr. Kempe's book 

* Carclwell, Doc. Ann. i.-C<',. 

swarms. To make this point clear, it will be convenient to 
classify some of Mr. Kempe's references. 


Of this Mr. Kempe says — "the ancient order of the Sarum 
Mass was for the most jjart retained" (p. 27). That is not 
true. Not more than two out of the twenty-three closely-printed 
pages of Mr. Maskell's reprint are to be found in the Sarum 
Missal. " If Ave compare it with the Canon according to the use 
of Sarum, we find that by far the greater part of it is neiv,'' 
says Prebendaiy Sadler.* Canon Estcourt has printed the two 
side by side, showing that " the Canon is so mutilated that only 
here and there do the words in the two books agree."'' Yet the 
' Canon ' is precisely that part of the Mass in which the 
invisible miracle and the supplementary 'sacrifice' were supposed 
to take place. 

Ridley in his Visitation Articles, June, 1550, asked "Whether 
the minister or any other doth reserve the saci^ament, and not 
immediately receive it ? "" 

But the C. B. S. have a further device for "depraving the 
Book of Common Prayer." Speaking (at p. 128) of the sanction 
supposed to be given by the First Prayer Book to Half-Com- 
munion (viz. in wafers only), Mr. Kempe says "it is cleai'ly stated 
in this book, as we have before observed, that ' in each of theiti ' 
is received the whole body of our Saviour Jesus Chi-ist." This 
is a double misrepresentation. The words "in each of them" do 
not relate, as Mr. Kempe pretends, to the bread and ivine, but to 
the separate particles of the bread, which in 1548 was (for the 
first time) ordered to be ' broken ' with a view to the distribution 
of its fragments to the people. And the words " the whole 
hodi/ " do not include the ' blood,' as Mr. Kempe's argument 
would necessarily imply. 

Mr. Kempe further speaks (p. 166) of the words of distri 
bution as a "'time-honoured formula:" whereas they were taken 
from Abp. Herman's Consultation, a Lutheran production devised 
by Bucer. The words used by the minister to each communi- 
cant " which ivas given for thee " had no place in the "time- 
honoured formula" which Mr. Kempe quotes at p. 105. Ifc 
was not the "body now given to thee," but the body once for 
all "given for thee" (1800 years ago), to which the new 
Protestant formula of the fii*st Prayer Book (and of our own) 
was thus made to relate. 


fares no better at Mr. Kempe's hands. He builds a vast edifice 
upon the rubric which directs that 

* " Church and the Af;e," p. 305. 

5 " Anghcan Ordinations," p 321. It can be seen also in Tract CXIIL, 
" The Sarum Mass and l.he First Prayer Book," price 2d. 
" Eidley's Register, fol, 305. . . 

<b * 

" When all have communicated, the Minister shall retnrn to the 
Lord's tahle, and reverently place upon it tchat remaineth of the conse' 
crated elements, covering the same with a fair linen cloth." 

The object of thus covering the elements was to mark the 
close of the sacramental 'action,' and to withdraw the "fragments 
that remain " from the contemplation of the worshippers. In 
John Alasco's liturgy, the iwconsecrated "white bread usual to 
be eaten " was similarly oi'dered to be " covered with a fair 
linen c\oi\x,^^ ciharius panis albus mundo linteo contegitur. Before 
our present rubric was introduced, Mountagu, Bp. of Norwich, 
asked, in 1638 — 

" Have you . . a napkin of fine linen, to cover the bread consecrated 
which cannot all at once be contained in the patten, and to fold up 
what is not used at the communion?"'' 

And in the same year, the Archdeacon of Worcester asked, 
" Have you . . a plate for the bread, and a towell to lay over 
it?"* This was doubtless suggested by the Scotch rubric of the 
previous year, which directed that 

" When all have commicnieated, he that celebrates shall go to the 
Lord's tahle, and cover with a fair linen cloth, or corporall, that which 
remaineth of the consecrated elements." 

But that this was not intended as an order for any wine or 
bread to be ' reserved ' is shown by another rubric (then also 
added), that 

"If any of the bread and wine remain, which is conseci'ated, it . . . 
shall not he carried out of the church. And to the end that there may 
he little left, he that officiates is required to consecrate with the least, 
and then if there be want, the words of consecration may be repeated 
again, over more, either bread or wine," &c. 

It is clear that the thing here guarded against was the Puritan 
practice of using unconsecrated elements ; yet, at the same time, 
any possibility of * reservation ' was provided against with equal 

The entire rubric as inserted in Laud's Scotch Liturgy of 
1637 was : — 

"And if any of the 3read and Wine remain, which is consecrated, it 
shall he reverently eaten and drunk hy such of the communicants only as 
the Presbyter which celebrates shall take unto him, but it shall not be 
carried out of the Church. And to the end there may be little left, he 
that officiates is required to consecrate with the least, and then, if there 
be want, the tvords of consecration may he repeated again, over more, 
either bread or wine : the Presbyter hegimiing at these words in the 
prayer of consecration (our Saviour in the night that he was betrayed, 
took, &c.) . 

Bp. Cosin, in his " IsTotes on the Prayer Book," says, " If he 
be careful, as he ought to he, to consecrate no more than will suffice 
to be distributed to the communicants, none ivill remain."^ He 
urged, therefore, that 

7 Eit. Kep. 580-10. » Eit. Eep. 58G-23. 9 Works, V.-356. 

" The priest may be enjoined to consider the number of them which, 
are to receive the Sacrament, and to consecrate the bread and wine in 
such near proportion as shall be sufficient for them ; hut if any of the 
consecrated elements be left, that he and some others with him shall 
decently eat and drink them in the church before all the people depart 
from it."io 

It is clear that there was no intention to 'reserve' any particle 
of the consecrated elements, which, indeed, could only be left 
unconsumed by (an involuntary) miscalculation of the number 
of intending communicants. To guard against any notion of 
bread-worship, or of propitiatory oblation, our Reformers trans- 
posed the "Prayer of oblation," so that it might only be used in 
the post-communion, after the consecrated elements Jiad been 
consumed. As a further precaution, an alternative prayer was 
provided, so that the " prayer of oblation " need never be read 
when any portion of bread or wine happens to be left. Yet 
upon these facts Mr. Kempe founds an amazing series of 
fanatical statements. He says — 

" We learn from Pope Gelasius and others that the familiar custom 
of reserving the remaining part of the consecrated elements until the 
end of the Mass, noto enjoined in our English rubric, was regarded as 
an ancient custom . . and consequently may be reckoned among those 
liturgical usages which are derived from the holy Apostles them- 
selves." "The post-communion rubric distinctly ew;o/'w5 the liturgical 
xisage of reservation" (p. 35). "The solemn liturgical blessing is now 
given by the bishop, or in his absence by the priest, in presence of the 
Eucharist. . . The principle of reserving the Lord's body for Euchar- 
istic intercession, worship, and benediction, in union with the oblation 
of the holy Sacrifice, is thereby intrinsically recognised" (p. 45). 
" These rubrics, when regarded in the light of Catholic antiquity, 
direct the priest, according to the present English rite, in the first 
place to reserve the Blessed Sacrament at every celebration" (p. 102). 
" The immediate object of this rubric was to provide for the reservation 
of the Eucharist until after the ^a\e?,s\\^^, in order that tlie propitiatory 
sacrifice of Christ's death and passion might be pleaded. His Godhead 
worshipped, and His blessing bestowed, in union with the Oblation of 
His holy mysteries" (p. 144). 

All this marvellously complete doctrine of the Mass is built 
by Mr. Kempe upon the two facts that some bread or wine 
might possibly be left, and that the clergyman might possibly 
use the " Prayer of Oblation" at that time. If that be not a 
"non-natural interpi'etation," it is not easy to understand what 
could possibly merit such an appellation. 


(25 H. 8, c. 19, sec. 7) is relied upon by Mr. Kempe as giving 
statutory force to the pre- Reformation Canon Law. That would 
be "strange, if true," since, as he himself observes (p. 54), "No 
edition of the Constitutions was issued from the time of Abp. 

10 Works, V.-519. 


Warham until 1677 :" and (as he fails to observe) the very next 
year — a.d. 1535 — Heniy VIII., by Royal decree, put an end for 
ever to the study of Canon Law in both Universities." But Mr. 
Kempe further fails to observe that by the words of the Statute 
no neio or additional force was given even to such canons as for 
the time were to continue. They were only to be " still used and 
executed as they were afoee the making of this Act." That left 
to thena merely their non-Parliamentaiy, ' spiritual ' {i.e. clerical) 
authority. The Statute conferred no immediate authority, but 
merely exempted certain of them, provisionally, from virtual re- 
peal by the earlier sections of the Act until they should obtain the 
"authority of Parliament" by being reissued "under the Great 
Seal " of England, as provided in section 2 of the Act ; and this 
issue " under the Great Seal" has never yet taken place. 

Mr. Kempe also xirges their validity as Canon Law. But he 
forgets that forty j'ears of disuse repeals the binding force of 
mere Canons : that reception by the Church (i.e. the laity) is 
needed to validate all acts of the clergy : that the English 
bishops have formally repudiated this particular Constitution of 
his ; and, above all, that " as to these Constitutions . . . they 
must be taken, if of force at the time of the passing of any of 
the Acts of Uniformity, to have been repealed by those Acts."" 
If Mr. Kempe chooses to rely upon Statute Law, he must allow 
Her Majesty's judges to decide as to its meaning. And they 
have decided unmistakably against him. 

IV. Br. (iVERAI.L 

is misrepresented by Mr. Kempe. At pp. 12, 31, and elsewhere, 
the " First Series of Notes " (wrongly) attributed to Bp. Cosin, 
are assigned by Mr. Kempe to Overall, though they speak of 
Overall in the third person as " my lord and master," whom the 
writer " had heard preach a hundred times." Bp. Overall's real 
teaching was that the Eucharistic presence of Chi-ist is only "in 
the right use of the Sacrament, and to worthy recipients, not 
by transubstantiation nor by consiibstantiation, but by the Holy 
Spirit working by faith — Spiritu Sancto i^er hdem operante." 
Now, working " thi'ough faith " is not a working in bread or in 
Avine, as even Mr. Kempe must perceive.^" 

Mr. Kempe says "these Notes of 1619 are undoubtedly in the 
handwriting of Cosin." That is not so. Canon Meyrick has 
pointed out that the writing is very tmlike Cosin's, and that no 
one till 1840 ever attributed it to Cosin. Mr. James Parker 

11 See Dibdin's " Church Courts," p. .57. Strype, Eccl. Mem. I. i.-324, 382. 
Wilkins, iii.-.S12. 

13 Judgment of Her Majesty in Council, in Martin v. Mackonochie, p. 26. 

1'^ The passages are given in full in Dean Goode's " Nature of Christ's 
Presence," ii.-829, and the Report of Master Brooke's Committee, p. 104. 
See also Tract XCVIII., " The Misprinted Catechism," p. 9. 

has shown that an obscure clergyman named Hayward was 
probably the author of them." 


is Mr. Kempe's next victim. At pp. 38 and 8?, lie attiibutes t<> 
Cosin the very same Notes he had just before fathered upon 
Overall, thus polling his Avitness twice over. At ]>. 80 he again 
attributes them to " this illustrious divine," but he is careful to 
suppress Cosin's retractation (on the very next page of the edition 
from which he is quoting), which the editor says was "added 
at a later time," and which showed that Cosin outlived the 
mistake made by the unknown author of these "Notes" which. 
by that time, had come into Co.sin's possession.^^ 

Mr. Kem))e is further careful not to quote from the same 
volume and from Cosin's gemdne ' Notes ' such passages as the 
following — 

"Yet if l^or lack of care they consecrate more than they distribute, 
why may not the Curates have it to their own use . . for though the 
bread a]ul wine remain, yet the consecration, the sacrament of the 
body and blood of Christ, do not remaiji lonsrcr than the holy action 
itself remains for which the bread and wine were hallowed; and which 
being ended, return to their former use again.''""' 

A similar passage (of course not quoted by Mr. Kempe) occurs 
at page 481. And (Avhat is of far more value than any of these 
unpublished private ' Notes ') Cosin says, in his ptiblisJied 
" History of Transubstantiation " — " We also deny that the 
elements still retain the nature of saci'aments when not used 
according to Divine iiistitution, that is, given by Christ's 
ministers, and received by His people ; so that Christ in the 
consecrated bread ought not, cannot be kept and preserved to be 
carried about, because He is present only to the Communicants."'^ 

It is doing a gross wrong to ' Bishop ' Cosin to cite him as 
one who shared Mr. Kempe's notions. 


is said by Mr. Kempe to ' advocate ' (p. lOG) and to ' direct ' 
(p. 160) that "the priest shall reserve \_sic] — at the open Com- 
munion — so much of the sacrament of the body and blood as 
shall serve the sick person." 

The only foundation for this scandalous misrepresentation is 

" Hist. Revis. p. 325. i« Cosin's Works, v.-43. i" Works, V.-356. 

" Brewer's edit., p. 61, cf. pp. 12, 29, 57. In contrast with this teaching 
of Bp. Cosin's, the Church Review of April, 1887, may be quoted as to the 
impiety of " washing the cup and platter," and drinking the rinsings, " after 
the Communion instead of after the blessing. Considering how short a time 
we have our Lord's sacramental presence with us, we are loth to curtail the 
time by a single moment. As it now stands, the Gloria in excelsis is a grand 
hjrnm of adoration to our Saviour there and then present on the Altar ; the 
Prayer of Oblation is rendered all the more vivid by the priest being able, as 
it were, to point to the Sacrifice when he mentions it in that prayer." 


that, in his ' Rationale,' Bp. Sparrow noted that the Jacobean 
Prayer Book then in use failed to specify clearly *' how much of 
the Communion Service shall be used " in Visitations of the 
Sick.^^ To clear up that point he referred to the service as 
prescribed in the older Liturgy of 1549. " Now the direction 
formerly,' he says, ' was this." He then quotes verbatim the 
Rubric from the first Prayer Book of Edward, but interpolates 
into it the folio\?ing important words (which Mr. Kempe care- 
fully omits from his economical half-citation on page 154), viz. 
" And so proceeding in the Communion Service to the end of 
the consecration and distribution." 

These vv^ords were inserted by Sparrow into the Rubric of 
1549 in order to make that precedent applicable to the altered 
use of his own day. Had Mr. Kempe honestly quoted Bp. 
Sparrow's addition he would have proved that so far from 
' directing ' or ' advocating ' reservation, the Bp. directed that 
' consecration ' be used afresh at every Communion of the Sick 
in private houses. 


is similarly misrepresented. Mr. Kempe pretends to think that 
it was of statutory authority ' co-ordinate ' with the Prayer 
Book itself because, nine months after its issue, the Queen 
directed her Ecclesiastical Commissioners to take order lest the 
laity should be present at this Latin form of hers, which she 
intended only for scholars at Oxford, Cambridge, and the 
Colleges of Eton and Winchester, and for the private use of 
individual clergymen. Her Letters Patent of April 2, 1560, had 
directed that English service should be used ' Anglice ' wherever 
uneducated laymen were likely to attend. 

Strype says^^ that order was taken accordingly by the com- 
missioners : but the Order itself (if it ever existed) is lost. And 
it is clear that such an order as Mr. Kempe dreams of could not 
be authorised by the Act of Uniformity. And this is expressly 
stated by Mr. Kempe's two chosen authorities, Bp. Gibson and 
Bp. Sparrow. Gibson says,^ " No provision was made for this 
liberty in the foregoing Act, Eliz. 1, c. 2," and Sparrow, in 
1661, says of this Latin service, " It is a translation of some 
private pen not licensed by authority as I guess. "^^ 

Heylin, who was no fanatical Puritan, points out that these 
fancy additions by Elizabeth '* not being wai'ranted by the 
statute of the year preceding, were therefore authorised with a 

18 The obscurity was cleared up in 1662, by the addition of a new rubric, 
" the Priest shall proceed according to the form before prescribed for the holy 
Communion, beginning at these xcords [Ye that do truly, &c.]." 

19 In his Annals (I. -338), and Life of Parker, I.-165. 

20 Codex, i.-279 n. « Rationale, p. 340 of Newman's Edition. 


non ohsfante."^ It suits Mr. Kempe's polemical convenience to 
ignore tlie fact that Elizabeth issued this version (and its supple- 
mental offices) purely by her own royal authority (nostra aiitori- 
taie et jirivilegio regali), her Letters Patent saying expressly the 
Act of Uniformity " in cnntrarium non obstante. "^'^ Thus Mr. 
Kcnipc represents an " Act to the contrary notwithstanding " 
as equivalent to statutory authorisation by that very Act ! 

It is true that the new English Kalendar (which did come 
under the Act of Uniformity) was issued " by virtue of " Eliza- 
beth's letter to her Ecclesiastical Commissioners, dated Jan. 22, 
1561. But then, Abp. Parker and his fellow-commissioners were 
too wary to be misled into a breach of the Act of Uniformity. 
Their 'Order' of Oct. 10, 1561, which authorised the new 
Kalendar, ignored altogether the apocryphal Latin service. The 
'Order' is printed in full in Miller's " Guide to Ecclesiastical 
Law," p. 35. 

Mr. Kempe further states that "Art. 28 was revised by the 
very men who replaced the Rubric directing reservation in the 
Latin Prayer Book of 1560" (p. 19). That is utterly untrue. 
Elizabeth's Latin Prayer Book was a mere edition by Haddon of 
Aless' notoriously inaccurate vei-sion ; and Haddon (a lawyer) 
was not a member of the Convocation which drafted the 
Thirty-nine Articles of 1562. The Reformatio Leguvt, published 
by Abp. Parker in 1571, stated, "Therefore we neither suffer 
this Sacrament to be lifted up, nor carried about through the 
country, nor to be reserved for the morroio, nor worshipped. "^^ 

Again, Mr. Kempe says this Latin book was accepted "by the 
clergy." So far from being 'accepted,' the book dropped from the 
press stillborn. Strype says most of the colleges in Cambridge 
would not tolerate it as being "the Pope's dregges."'^' 

No second edition appeared, '^'^ but it was superseded by a 
diffei'ent version more agreeable to the Book of Common 
Prayer. Hence, when Convocation in 1640 asked " ut liber 
publicarum precum, in latinuni versus, reimprimatur," thoy 
had in their minds doubtless the Christ Church edition of 1615, 
from which Elizabeth's unauthorised fancy services had been 
e.xcluded. For it is important to remember that these addi- 
tional services, upon which Mr. Kempe builds, had a separate 
title-page, and formed no part even of Haddon's Prayer Book of 
1560, which ended Avith " Finis libri publicarum precum " after 
the Commination. 

In Mr. Kempe's bulky and elaborate pamphlet he is only able 
to adduce three authorities which are really in his favour. 

The first isPeccham, the Minorite friar whom the Pope thrust 
into the See of Canterbury in despite of the unanimous election of 

22 Hist. Eef. ii.-332. 23 clay's Eliz. Lit., Parker Soc, p. 301. 

2^ Nee confervuri in crastinum Hardwick's Thirty-nine Articles, p. 380. 

25 Life of Parker, p. 2C)9. 

*" See Clay's preface to Elizabethan Littii'gies, Parker Soc, p. xxxi. 


another person by the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury. Of him 
Dean Hook wrote, " The worst heresies of Mediaevalis i were 
now prevalent, and Friar Peckham came to England destined to 
carry to the extreme the superstitions in fashion at Rome."^' 
Collier** gives but a softened outline of Peccham's ' Consti- 
tutions.' Yet Mr. Kempe has the effrontery to say that they 
date "from a time anterior to the decay of religion" (p. 54). 
Bp. Gibson in his Codex^^ gives Peccham's Constitutions as 
"according" to the Papists" in contrast with the Anglican rubrics, 
&c., "according to the Protestants." 

Mr. Kempe's next authority is the Marian Convocation of 1559, 
who in their petition, presented by Bp. Bonner, aBirmed the 
Pope's supremacy and that the 'natural ' body and blood of Christ 
were "under the kinds of bread and wine." Mr. Kempe selects for 
special approbation that very article which even then was rejected 
by the two Universities.^" Lastly, he cites as authoritative Ton- 
stal's direction in Queen Mary's time, issued in obedience to the 
Legatine decree of Cardinal Pole the year before,^^ that the 
host should be reserved in a tabernacle ! Yet Pole himself is 
witness to the utter irregularity of his own acts, for he explained 
to Philip of Spain that the Abp. of Canterbu.ry was then in 
prison, and that the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury could not 
act, since the Primate was " neither condemned, nor deposed, nor 
was the See vacant. "^^ 

Such are the vouchers by which Mr. Kempe seeks to 
make it 

" Evident that this Catholic and primitive (sic) usage will in Grod's 
good time be restored among us, just as the ecclesiastical spirit among 
our clergy, and the discipline of spiritual life among our people, and 
the august solemnities of Divine worship have been, and are now being 
continually and with ever increasing perfection and beauty, restored to 
our communion." 

■•'7 Eccl. Biog. viii.-28. 28 Hist. ii.-579. ^9 I..355.386. 

■■o Card. Conf., p. 23. 

■■1 Card. Doc. Ann. i.-liG. Tonstal wrote " contra communicationem 
iitriusque speciei." Parker, Corr., p. 106. 
3- Venetian State Papers, vol. vi., a.d. 1555. 

To be obtained at the Office of the Church Associatiok, 14, Buckingham Street, Strand, 
London, W.C., at tbo price of Sd per dozen or is 6d per 100. 

6 'i Thousand.] 

r**:?-'-'^^^ <^5<^- «^W^«^*«^^«^J<^*^5<^'^*<f-''^*<r~-'C5<r-' 












CHUECH ASSOCIATION, 14. Buckingham Street, Stband. 

J. F. SHAW & Co., -18, Paternoster Row. 

J. KENSIT, 18, Paternoster Row. 

Wo. CXIII.] 




IR ROBERT PHILLIMORE, when Dean of the 
Arches, said,* " The whole Prayer Book in fact, witli 
very inconsiderable exceptions, consists of a trans- 
lation of the Ancient Liturgies, and especially of 
that litnrgy used by the Western Church." Hallam 
saidjt " The liturgy was essentially the same with, 
the Mass book." The editor employed by Messrs. 
Griffith and Farran to write a preface to their cheap edition of 
the Second Prayer Book of Edward VI, says, " The first liturgy 
of King Edward followed closely the ancient Canon, only it was 
in English." 

On the other hand Prebendary Sadler tells us, " The Euchar- 
istic service of the Church of England is substantially a new 
service. If we take even the Communion Office of 1549 and 
compare it with the Canon according to the Use of Sarura, we 
find that by far the greater part of it is new." " The office of 
1549 occupies twenty-three closely-printed pages at the end of 
Mr. Maskell's ' Ancient Liturgies of the Church of England,' 
and of these not above two pages are to be found in the Sarum 
Missal." {The Church and the Age, p. 305.) 

Canon Estcourt has placed this beyond controversy by 
printing side by side in parallel columns the Liturgy of 1549 
and the Canon of Sarum, with the result of showing that 
" every expression wliich implied a real and proper sacrifice had 
been weeded out. The canon is so mutilated that only here and 
there do the words in the two books agree." (Dogmatic 
Teaching of the Booh of Common Prayer on the Eucharist, pp. 
16, 40.) 

Such variations are of comparatively small importance in the 
Ante- Communion, though the Confession to "the Blessed Maiy, 
all Saints, and you ; " and the " praying holy Mary, all the 
Saints of God, and you " of Sarum (like the " Holy Mary, 
Mother of God, intercede for us " of the Hereford Missal) were 
struck out of this part of the Reformed Anglican rite. It is 
interesting to note that the absolution given to the Priest by 
the choir was, in 1549, put into the mouth of the Protestant 
Minister, while the distinctively sacerdotal absolution of the 
Sarum Use was omitted altogether. 

* Martin v. Maclionochie, p. 53. f Const. Hist. I. 68. 

Minute ritaal directions about censing, kissing, crossing, and 
band-washinc, and an endless variety of rules about clothes- 
wearing, with processions of candle-bearers, &c., were all got 
rid of. The Priest used to begin Mass at the South* corner. 
But this was discontinued in 1549 : and as if to destroy all " his- 
toric continuity " with the Ritual of the Mass, the Reformers in 
1552 adopted the " North " side for the corresponding portion of 
our own office. The number seven had been fixed by the Saruni 
rubrics as a limit in the matter of Collects of which Canon 
Estcourt gives a couple of samples for the sake of comparison. 

Second Collect of the Blessed Virgin Mary. 
Grant to us thy servants, we beseech thee, O Lord God, to enjoy 
perpetual health of mind and body, and by the glorious intercession 
of Blessed Mary ever Virgin, to be delivered from present sorrow, 
and to enjoy eternal gladness. 

Third Collect of All Saints. 
Grant we beseech thee, Almighty God, that by the intercession of 
holy Mary, Mother of God, and of all the holy Powers of heaven, and 
the blessed Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles, Evangelists, Martyrs, 
Confessors, and Virgins, and all thine elect, we may everywhere have 
cause to rejoice ; and while recalling their merits, may be sensible of 
their protection. 

All such prayers disappeared, of course, in the Edwardian 
Prayer Book. In fact, beyond the Epistle, Gospel, Nicene Creed, 
Gloria, Kyrie, and the Psalm used as an ' introit,' the two 
ofiices have in this part hardly any feature in common. The 
sermon, homily, and ' Exhortation ' (being addressed to the 
understanding) found, of course, no place in a service which was 
merely in Latin. 

But from the Ofi'ertory onwards the doctrinal erasures become 
so numerous and so important that if the Sarum rite were free 
from error, they amount to an apostasy. 

To facilitate comparison. Canon Estcourt's tabular ai'rangement 
is adopted, which will enable the omissions to be seen at a 

ST^e ^arum iHtssal E\}t JSook of Clommon il^rager, 

After the Offertory let the Deacon Then shall the Minister talce so 
present the chalice with the much bread and wine as shall 

paten and host (sacrificiuni) suffice for thepersons appointed 

to the Priest: and hiss his to receive the Holy Gonimu- 

hand each time. He receiving nion. 

from him the chalice, places 
it carefully in its oivn due 
place on tliemidst of the altar: 
and toith head bent for the 
moment, let him elevate the 

* See "The Lay Folk's Mass Book " (Knott, 26, Brooke Street, Holborn), 
pp. 7, 9, 20. 

STfte .Saraim Plfssal. 

chalice loitli, both hands, offer- 
ing the sacrifice to tlie Lord, 
and saying this prayer : 

Eeceive, O Holy Trinity, this 
oblation, whicli I, unworthy sin- 
ner, offer in honour of thee and 
of blessed Mary and all thy 
Saints, for my sins and offences, 
and for the salvation of the liv- 
ing, and rest of all the faithful 
departed. In the name of the 
Father, and of the Son, and of 
the Holy Ghost be this new 
sacrifice accepted of Almighty 

This prayer having been said, 
let him replace the chalice, 
and cover it ivith the corporals, 
and place the bread decently 
■upon the corporals, in front 
of the chalice containing ivine 
and water, and kiss the paten, 
and let him replace it on tJtc 
altar on his right, binder the 
corporals, partly covering it. 

\^After vario2(.s censings and 
crossings (omitted for the salce 
of brevity)] 

Then the Priest goes to the right- 
hand corner of the altar, and 
washes his hands, saying: 

Cleanse me, O Lord, from all 
defilement of mind and body, that 
being cleansed I may be able 
to fulfil the hol}^ work of the 

Then turning him about, and 
standing before the altar, ivith 
head and body inclined and 

C!)e Book of Common Praoer, 

Laying the bread upon the cor- 
poras, or else in the paten, or 
hi some other comely thing pre- 
pared for that purpose ; and 
putti)ig the wine into the chal- 
ice, or else in some fair or co-n- 
venient cup prepared for that 
use {if the chalice will\ not 
serve), piitting thereto a litth- 
pure and clean tcater ; and 
setting both the bread and wine 
upon the altar. 

* The words ' acceptum sit omnipotenti Deo hoc saciificium novum ' are 
not in Maskell ; but they are found in both the editions of 1515 and 151G, and 
in the Sarum Mass in Martene. (Estcourt.) 

t Pre-Eeformation chalices, being intended only for the Communion of 
the Priest, were too tiny to serve for the Communion of the Laity. 

Wht Sarum IHfssal. Wi)t Baofe af Common Prauer, 

hands joined, let Jiim say fJic 
prayer : 

In the spirit of humility and 
in a contrite heart, may we be 
accepted of thee, O Lord, and 
may our sacrifice he so done in 
thy sight, that it may be accepted 
of thee to-day, and please thee, 
O Lord God. 

Then standing erect let him Jciss 

the altar on the right-hand 

side of the host, \_sacrificium^ 

and bless first the host and 

then himself with the sign of 

the cross, saying : 

In the name of the Father, 
and of the Son, and of the Holy 
Ghost. Amen. 

Then let the Priest turn himself 

to the people, and say with a 

loiv (tacitct) voice : 

Pray for me, brethren and 
sisters, that the sacrifice which 
is equally j^ours and mine may 
be accepted of the Lord our God. 

Answer of the Clerks privately : 

May the grace of the Holy 
Ghost illuminate thy heart and 
thy lips, and may the Lord deign 
to accept this sacrifice of praise 
at thy hands, for our sins and 

And turning again to the altar, 
let the Priest say the secret 
prayers, which are to be the 
same in mimber and order 
as \_the Collects^ before the 

Let us pray.* 
O God. who by the perfection 
of one sacrifice hast fulfilled the 
variety of sacrifices of the law : 
accept the sacrifice offered to 
thee by thy devoted servants, and 

* The collects for the Eighth yunday after Trinity are here given from 
Estcourt by way of samples. 

E\}z Saturn iWissal. 

sanctify it with thy benediction 
like the offerings of just Abel; 
that what they severally have 
offered in honour of thy Majesty, 
may profit them all together to 
salvation. Through our Lord, 

By thy propitiation, O Lord, 
and the intercession of Blessed 
Mary ever Virgin, may this obla- 
tion profit us to our perpetual 
and i^resent prosperity and peace. 

Be graciously pleased, O Lord, 
with the gifts offered unto thee; 
the blessed and glorious Mary, 
ever Virgin and Mother of God, 
interceding, with all thy Saints. 

Protect VIS, O Lord, we beseech 
thee, in the service of thy mys- 
teries ; that by cleaving to divine 
things we may serve thee in body 
and soul. 

O God, who wilt permit no 
terrors to overwhelm the people 
that believe in thee, vouchsafe 
to accept the prayers and sacri- 
fices of the people dedicated unto 
thee, that in the peace which 
in thy pity thou dost grant. 
Christian lands may be made 
secure from all enemies. Through 
our Lord, &c. 

\_A coviplex riibric here omitted 
for brevity's salce. Pater noster.] 

Which ended let the Priest say 
aloud : 

Tor ever and ever. 

^1 .y. Amen. 

Tlie Lord be with you. 

Ai<.-<. And with thy spirit. 

Here let the Priest raise his 
hands, saying 

Lift up your hearts. 

Aii'<. "NVe have them to the 

Let us give thanks to the Lord 
our God. 

A71S. It is meet and just. 

Preface. It is truly meet and 
just, right and salutary, that we 

^|)e ISook of dTommon iStapec, 

Then the Priest shall say : 

The Lord be with you. 
Ans. And with thy spirit. 

Priest. Lift up your hearts. 

Ans. We lift them up unto the 

Priest. Let us give thanks to 
our Lord God. 

Ans. It is meet and right so to 

Priest. It is very meet, right, 
and our bounden duty, that we 

Eh Saturn ilHtssal. 

at all times, and in all places, 

five thanks to thee, O holy Lord, 
'ather Almighty, Eternal God : 
through Christour Lord. Through 
whom the Angels praise thy Ma- 
jesty, the Dominations adore, the 
Powers tremble. The heavens 
and the heavenly Virtues, and 
the blessed Seraphim join with 
exultation to celebrate together. 
With whom we pray thee to 
grant admittance to our voices, 
in suppliant confession, saying, — 

The Sanctus follows. While 
the priest is saying Holy, 
Holy, let him lift his arms 
for the moment and join his 
hands till the words, In the 
name of the Lord : then let 
him alivays sign himself On 
the face. 

[And* therefore with Angels 
and Archangels, with Thrones 
and Dominations, and with all 
the array of the heavenly host, 
we sing a hymn to thy glory, 
repeating without end :] 

Holy, holy, holy. Lord God 
of Hosts. The heavens and the 
earth are full of thy glory. Ho- 
sanna in the highest. Blessed 
is he that cometh in the name 
of the Lord. Hosanna in the 

[The Sanctus was also sung by 
the Choir.'} 

Then at once with hands joined, 
and eyes raised, and his body 
inclined until the ivords 'and 
beseech ' the Priest is to begin 
the Canon, 

2rf)e Book of Cflmm0n ^xmzi 

should at all times, and in all 

E laces, give thanks to thee, 
ord, Holy Father, Almighty, 
Everlasting God. 

Therefore with Angels and 
Archangels, and with all the 
holy company of heaven, we 
laud and magnify thy glorious 
name; evermore praising thee, 
and saying : 

^ Holy, holy, holy, Lord God 
of Hosts; heaven and earth are 
full of thy glory : Osannah in 
the highest. Blessed is he that 
cometh in the name of the Lord. 
Glory to thee, O Lord, in the 

This the GlerJcs shall also sing. 
^ When the Clerks have done 
singing, then shall the Priest, 
or Deacon turn him, to the 
people, and say : 

Let us pray for the whole state 
of Christ's Church. 

Then the Priest, ttirning him, to 
the altar, shall say or sing, 
plainly and distinctly, this 
prayer following : 
Almighty and ever-living God, 

* This conclusion is not used in the common Preface, either in the Sarum 
or Eoman Missals, but only in some of the proper Prefaces. (Lbtcuurt.j 



€\)z Saturn iKissal. 

Cfie (Tanoit. 

Therefore, we humbly beg and 
beseech thee, O most merciful 
Father, through Jesus Christ thy 
Son our Lord [here rising let him 
hiss the altar to the right of the 
sacrifice, saying^ to accept 

and bless 
these gifts, these presents, these 
holy undefiled sacrifices, [^qfter 
making little signs upoii the chalice 
let him raise his hands while 
saying,'] which we offer to thee 

for thy holy Catholic Church 
which vouchsafe to keep in peace, 
to guard, unite, and govern 
throughout the world. 

together with thy servant our 
Pope N., and our Bishop N,, 
and our King N. 

STfje Boojft of Common Prager, 

which by thy holy Apostle hast 
taught us to make prayers and 
supplications, and to give thanks 
for all men : 

We humbly beseech thee most 
mercifully to receive 

and all orthodox professing the 
Catholic and Apostolic faith. 

these our prayers, which we offer 
unto thy divine Majesty, be- 
seeching thee to inspire con- 
tinually the universal Church 
with the spirit of truth, unity, 
and concord. And grant that all 
they that do confess thy holy 
name may agree in the truth of 
thy holy word and live in unity 
and godly love. 

[All Bishops, Pastors, and Cu- 

Specially we beseech thee to 
save and defend thy servant 
Edward our King, that under 
him we may be godly and quiet- 
ly governed. And grant unto 
his whole council, and to all 
that be j)ut in authority under 
him, that they may truly and 
indifferently minister justice, to 
the punishment of wickedness 
and vice, and to the maintenance 
of God's true religion and virtue. 
Give grace, O heavenly Father, 
to all Bishops, Pastors, and 
Curates, that they may both by 
their life and doctrine set forth 
thy true and lively word, and 
rightly and duly administer thy 
holy Sacraments; 
and to all thy people give thy 
heavenly grace, that with meek 

* All passages in this column which have been transposed to facilitate 
comparison are enclosed in square brackets. 

El}z Sarum JHissal. 

Here let Mm pray for the living, 

Eemember, O Lord, thy ser- 
vants men and women, N. and N. 

And all those standing around, 
whose faith and devotion arc 
known to thee, for whom we 
offer to thee, or who offer unto 
thee this sacrifice of praise, for 
themselves, and all that belong 
to them, for the redemption of 
their souls, for the hope of their 
salvation and safety : and who 
render their vows to thee, the ever- 
lasting, living, and true God. 

Communicating with, and ven- 
erating the memory 

in the first place of the glorious 
ever Virgin Mary, Mother of our 
God and Lord Jesus Christ : 

as also of thy blessed Apostles 
and Martyrs Peter and Paul, 
Andrew, &c. &c., and all thy 
Saints; by whose merits and 
prayers mayest thou grant, that 
in all things we may be defended 
by the help of thy protection. 
Through the same Christ our 
Lord. Amen. 

STi^e Book of (!i;amin0n ^Sraoer, 

heart and due reverence they 
may hear and receive thy holy 
word, truly serving thee in holi- 
ness and righteousness all the 
days of their life. 

And we most humbly beseech 
thee of thy goodness, O Lord, 
to comfort and succour all them, 
which in this transitory life be 
in trouble, sorrow, need, sickness, 
or any other adversity. 

And especially we commend 
unto thy merciful goodness this 
congregation which is here as- 
sembled in thy name, to celebrate 
the commemoration of the most 
glorious death of thy Son. 

And here we do give unto thee 
most high praise, and hearty 
thanks, for the wonderful grace 
and virtue, declared in all thy 
Saints, from the beginning of the 
world : 

and chiefly in the glorious and 
most blessed Virgin Mary, Mo- 
ther of thy Son Jesu Christ our 
Lord and God, and in the holy 
Patriarchs, Prophets, 
Apostles and Martjrs, 

whose examples, O Lord, and 
steadfastness in thy faith, and 
keeping thy holy commandments, 
grant us to follow. 

[The commemoration of the dead* 

* The revisers of our Liturgy transposed this prayer, placing it before the 
oblation, perhaps for fear that it should give any countenance to the Romisli 
error, ' that Christ was offered for the quick and dead.' [Trarts for tlie Time^;, 
No. 81, p. 11.) So WilberforcG, Doc. P.nnli., p. 380. 

77 * 


2rJ)e .Saturn ilStsgal. 

Here let the Priest regard the 
Host with great veneration, 
saying : 

This oblation tlierefore of our 
service, as also of thy whole family, 
we beseech thee, O Lord, favour- 
ably [placatus] to accept, and to 
dispose our days in thy peace, 
that we may be snatched from 
eternal damnation, and be num- 
bered in the flock of thine elect. 
Through Christ, our Lord. Amen, 
[^Here again let him look at the 
Host, saying ;] Which oblation do 
thou. Almighty God, we beseech 
thee, in all things vouchsafe 
to make bles + sed, adm + itted, 
rati-ffied, reasonable, and accept- 

that it may be 
to us the Bo + dy and Blo+od 
of thy most beloved Son, our 
Lord Jesus Christ, [Jiere let the 
Priest raise himself and join his 
hands : and after cleanse his fin- 
gers and elevate the host, saying ;] 
who the day before he suffered, 
took bread 

into his holy and venerable 
hands, and with eyes lifted up 
to heaven [^here let him raise his 
own eyes'], to thee, O God, his 
Father Almighty, \_here let him 
incline himself and afterward 
raise a little, saying:] giving 

QTfje Book of (Common Praocr, 
follows here, hut for the sake 
of brevity is transferred to 
the place corresponding with 
the Canon of the Mass.] 
O God, heavenly Father, which 
of thy tender mercy didst give 
thine only Sou Jesus Christ to 
suffer death upon the cross for 
our redemption, who made there 
(by his one oblation, once offered) 
a full, perfect, and sufficient 
sacrifice, oblation, and satisfac- 
tion for the sins of the whole 
world ; and did institute, and in 
his holy Gospel command us to 
celebrate, a perpetual memory of 
that his precious death until his 
coming again : 

Hear us, O merciful Father, we 
beseech thee, and with thy Holy 
Spirit and word vouchsafe to 

and sanc+tify these thy gifts 
and creatures of bread and wine 

that they may be* 

unto us the body and blood of 
thy most dearly-beloved Son 
Jesus Christ, 

who, in the same night that he 
was betrayed, took bread \_here 
the Priest must take the bread 
into his hands]. 

and when he had blessed, and 

* These words being " mis-taken " by Gardiner, who argued from them 
that Christ's body was " in that order exhibited and made present unto us, 
by conversion of the substance of bread into His precious body," Cranmer 
replied, "In the book of the holy Communion we do not pray absolutely that 
the bread may be made the body and blood of Christ, but that unto us in that 
holy mystery they may be so" (" On the Lord's Supper," p. 79) ; hence the 
change of language in the Consecration Prayer of 1552, which is that of our 
present prayer book, and suggests no such ambiguity. 


. ^^t .Sarum fHtssal. 

thanks to tliee, he ble + ssed, brate 
[here let him touch the host'\, and 
gave to his disciples, saying, Take, 
and eat all of you of this 
\_These are the words of Consecra- 

For this is my Body. 

And these ivords ought to be 
brought out loith one breath 
and at one utterance, no pause 
being introduced. After these 
words let the priest [bow to the 
host and~\ elevate it above his 
forehead that it may be seen 
by the people : and reverently 
replace it in front of the 
chalice, mahing with it the 
sign of the cross. And then 
let him uncover the chalice 
and hold it betiveen his hands 
not disjoining his thumb from 
his forefinger, save when he is 
giving the blessings, saying 
thus : 

In like mannei* after supper, 
taking also this excellent chalice 

into his holy and venerable 
hands [here he bows, saying ;], 
also giving thanks to tliee, he 
blessed it, and gave it to his 
disciples, saying, 

Take, and 
drink of it, all of you ; [here let 
the Priest elevate the chalice for a 
moment, saying thus'] for this is 

the Chalice of 

My Blood of the New and eternal 


the Mystery of Faith ; 

which for you, and for many, 

shall be shed for remission of 

STfic Book of Common Praoer, 

given thanks, he brake it, and 
gave it to his disciples, saying, 
Take, eat. 

this is my Body, 
which is given for you : do this 
in remembrance of me. 

Likewise after supper, he took 
the cup [he7'e the Priest shall take 
the Clip into his hands], 

and when he had given thanks, 
he gave it to them, saying, 

Drink ye all of this ; for this is 

My Blood of the New 

which is shed for you, and for 
many, for remission of sins : 

[Here let him elevate the chalice, 
saying .-] 

As often as you shall do these 
things, you shall do them 
in remembrance of me. 

Do this, as oft as you shall 
drink it, 
in remembrance of me. 

Here let him replace the chalice The icords before rehearsed are 


and raise his arms in the 
fashion of a cross, his fingers 
being joined, until the words 
Of thy gifts, saying on this 
wise : 
Wherefore, O Lord, 

we tliy servants 
aud likewise tliy lioly people, 
do offer to 
thy excellent Majesty 
of thy gifts aud bounties, a pure 
-I-, victim, a holy + victim, an 
immaculate + victim, the holy+ 
bread of eternal life, and the 
cliaiice -J- of everlasting salvation; 
having in remembrance as well 
the ble>ssed passion of the same 
Christ thy Son our Lord God, as 
also his resurrection from the 
dead, and likewise his glorious 
ascension into heaven. 

Upon which things {quce) vouch- 
safe to look with a propitious and 
serene countenance ; 

and accept them 
a-s thou didst vouchsafe to ac- 
cept the offerings of thy just 
servant Abel, and the sacrifice 
of our patriarch Abraham, and 
that which thy high priest Mel- 
chisedec offered to thee, 
a holy sacrifice, an immaculate 
victim {hostiam). 

2ri)e Book of Common Praoev, 
to he said, turning still to the 
altar, without any elevation, 
or shelving the Sacrament to 
the jyeople. 

Wlicrefore, O Lord 
and heavenly Father, according 
to the Institution of thy dearly- 
beloved Son, our Saviour Jesxi 
we thy humble servants, 

do celebrate and make here 

before thy divine Majesty, 
with these thy holy gifts, the 
memorial which thy Son hath 
willed us to make : 

having in remembrance his 
blessed passion, mighty resur- 
rection, and glorious ascension. 

rendering unto thee most hearty 
thanks, for the innumerable 
benefits procured unto us by 
the same, entirely desiring thy 
fatherly goodness, mercifully 
to accept this 

our sacrifice of prayer and 
thanksgiving: most humbly be- 
seeching thee to grant, that by 
the merits and death of thy Son 
Jesus Christ, and through faith 
in his blood, we and all thy 
whole Church may obtain remis- 
sion of our sins, and all other 
benefits of his passion. And 
here we offer and present* unto 

* " Thus adding to the condemned doctrine of the Mass being only a sacri- 
fice of praise and thanksgiving, the other idea of the Christian sacrifice 


VLijc 5 arum fHi'ssal. 

Then let the Priest ivith body 
hoived and hands crossed 
(cancellatis) say : 

We humbly beseech thee, O Al- 
mighty (rod, 

command these things (kcec) to be 
carried by tlie hands of thy holy 
Angel to thine altar on high in 
sight of thy Divine Majesty, 

that as many of ns as shall {^/lere 
raising himself let him kiss the 
altar on the right of the sacrifice^ 
by this participation of the altar. 

the most holy Bo+dy and Blo+od 

of thy Son, 
may be fulfilled with {^Iiere let 
him sig7i himself on the face^ all 
heavenly benediction and grace, 
through the same Christ our 
Lord. Amen. 

Sere let him 2'>ray for the dead. 

Eemember also, O Lord, the 
souls of thy servants, men and 
women, N. and N., who have gone 
before us, 

witli the sign of faith, and rest 
in the sleep of peace : 

We beseech thee to grant unto 
them, O Lord, 

and to all who rest in Christ, a 
place of refreshment, light, and 

Through the same Christ our 
Lord. Amen. 

3Cfl0 Book of Cammon ^raoer, 

thee, O Lord, ourself, our souls 
and bodies, to be a reasonable, 
holy, and lively sacrifice unto 

Humbly beseeching thee, 

[command these our prayers and 
supplications, by the ministry of 
thy holy Angels, to be brought 
up into thy holy Tabernacle 
before the sight of thy Divine 
Majesty] ; 

that whosoever shall be par- 
takers of this holy Communion, 
may worthily 

the most 


precious body and 

of thy Son Jesus Christ, 
be fulfilled with thy grace 

and heavenly benediction, 

and made one body with thy Son 
Jesus Christ, that he may dwell 
in them, and they in him. 

[We commend unto thy mercy, 
O Lord, all other thy servants 
which are departed hence from 

with the sign of faith, and now 
do rest in the sleep of peace ; 

Grant unto them, we beseech 

thy mercy and everlasting 

consisting in the offering of ourselves as a reasonable service. Now these 
ideas, be it observed, were advocated by Luther, for the very purpose of 
denying that there is any priesthood under the Gospel besides that common 
to all Christians." — Estcourt. 


STIjc .5avum fHtssal. 

Mere let Jiim strike Ms own 
breast once, saying : 

To us sinners also tliy servants, 
hoping in the multitude of thy 

vouchsafe to grant some part and 
fellowship with thy holy Apostles 
and Martyrs: with John, Stephen, 
&c., with all thy Saints, intowliose 
company do thou, we beseech thee, 
admit us, 

not as a weigher of merit, but as 
a bestower of pardon, through 
Christ our Lord. 

Through whom, O Lord, thou 
art ever creating good things, [here 
the Priest shall sign the cup thrice, 
saying .-] sanctify, give life to, 
bless, and bestow them on us. 

{Here let tJie Priest uncover the 
chalice and make a little cross 
with the host, five times : first, 
over the chalice on either side ; 
second, level with the chalice; 
third, at its foot ; the fourth 
heing like the first one; the 
fifth, in front of it."] 

By + him, and with + him, 
and in + him, in the luiity of the 

STfjc Book of Common ISragcr, 

and that, at the day of the general 
resurrection, we and all they 
which be of the mystical body of 
thy Son, may altogether be set 
on his right hand, and hear that 
his most joyful voice : Come unto 
me, O ye that be blessed of my 
Father, and possess the kingdom, 
which is prepared for you from 
the beginning of the world ; grant 
this, O Father, for Jesus Christ's 
sake, our only Mediator and Ad- 

And although we be unworthy 
through our manifold sins 

to offer unto thee any Sacrifice ; 
yet we beseech thee to accept 
this our bounden duty and service, 
and command these our prayers 
and supplications, by the ministry 
of thy holy Angels, to be brought 
up into tliy holy Tabernacle before 
the sight of thy divine Majesty ; 
not weighing our merits, but par- 
doning our offences, through 
Christ our Lord : 

by whom, and with whom, 
in the unity of the Holy Ghost, 

* Transposed from the place previously noted in p. 10, the words being 
used pj-ior to the consecration. 


E\)t Sarum ilHissal. 

Holy Ghost, all honour and glory- 
is unto thee, O God the Father 
Almighty [here Jet the Priest cover 
the chalice, and hold his hands 
on the altar until Pater noster is 
said, saying .•] world without end. 

Admonished by salutary pre- 
cepts, and formed by divine in- 
struction, we are bold to say, 
[here let the deacon receive the 
paten and hold it high on, the right 
ofthepriest, with outstretched arm, 
until ' bestow peace.' Here let the 
Priest raise his hands, saying ;] 

Our Father, &c. 

Choir. But deliver us from evil. 

The Priest, privately. Amen. 
Deliver us, we beseech thee, O 
Lord, from all evils, past, present, 
and to come ; and the blessed and 
glorious Mary, ever Virgin and 
Mother of God, and the blessed 
Apostles Peter and Paul, and 
Andrew and all the Saints, inter- 
ceediug ; [here let the deacon give 
the paten to the Priest, kissing his 
hand : and the Priest shall kiss 
the paten : afterwards put it to 
his left eye, and then to his right : 
afterwards making a cross icith 
the paten above his head, and then 
replace it in its oum place, saying .-] 
graciously bestow peace in our 
days ; that, assisted by the help 
of thy mercy, we may be both. 
ever free from sin, and secure from 
all perturbation. [Sere let him 
uncover the chalice and, bowing, 
take the Body, transferring it into 
the hollow of the chalice and re- 
taining it there between his thumbs 
and forefingers, let him break it 
into three parts, while he says ;] 
Through the same our Lord, Jesus 
Christ, thy Son. [At the second 
breaking'] Vfho with thee liveth 
and reigncth in the unity of the 
Spirit, God. 

[Here let him hold two of the 
broken pieces in his left hand : 
and the third in iiis rifjht 

2r^e Book of dammon ^rnoer, 

all honour and glory be unto 
thee, O Father Almighty, world 
without end. Amen. 

Let us pray. As ovir Saviour 
Christ hath commanded and 
taught us, we are bold to say, 

Our Father, &c. 
The Answer. But deliver us 
fi'om evil. Amen. 


QTfje Sarum fHfssal. 

Jia7id at the top of the chalice, 
saying with a loud voice :] 
World without end. Amen. 
35ntr of Canon. 

T7ie Priest. Tlie peace of + 
the Lord be + always with. + 

Choir ansioers. And with thy 

\_At the singing of the Agnus 
let the deacon and sub-deacon 
both approach the right hand 
of the priest : thedeacon^iearer, 
and the sub-deacon further off, 
and say privately :] 

Lamb of God, that takest away 
the sins of the world, have mercy 
upon us. 

Lamb of God, that takest away 
the sins of the world, have mercy 
upon us. 

Lamb of God, that takest away 
the sins of the world, grant us 

Mere while making the sign 
of the cross let him place the 
third particle of the Host in 
the sacrament of the blood, 
saying : 

May this most sacred + com- 
mixture of the Body and Blood of 
our Lord Jesus Christ be made 
to me and all who receive it 
salvation of mind and body ; and 
a wholesome iDreparation for de- 

2ri}£ 330ofe of ffi^ominon draper, 

T/ien shall the Priest say : The 
peace of the Lord be alway with 

The Clerks. And with thy 

The Priest. Christ our Paschal 
Lamb is offered up for us, once for 
all, ivhen he bare our sins on his 
body upon the cross; for he is 
the very Lamb of God, that taketh 
away the sins of the world: 
wherefore let us keep a joyful 
and holy feast with the Lord. 

[In the communion time the 
Glerks shall sing, 
ii. O Lamb of God, that takest 

away the sins of the world : have 

mercy upon us. 

O Lamb of God, that takest 

away the sins of the world : 

grant us thy peace. 

beginning so soon as the priest 
doth receive the holy Com- 
munion, and when the Com- 
munion is ended, then shall 
the Clerks sing the post- 


QTte Snrum SBmal E\it ISfloft of (ZTammon i^ragtr,. 


serving and obtaining life eternal 
Through, &c. Amen. 

Before the pax is given, let the 

Priest say : 

O Lord, Holy Father, Almighty, 
Everlasting God, grant me so 
worthily to receive this sacred 
Body and Blood of thy Son our 
Lord Jesus Christ; that I may 
deserve by this to receive remis- 
sion of all my sins ; and to be 
filled with thy Holy Spirit and 
to have thy peace ; for thou art 
God, and besides thee there is 
none otlier ; whose glorious king- 
dom abides for ever and ever. 

Here let the Priest hiss the cor- 
porals on the right and top 
of the chalice, and afterwards 
kiss the deacon, saying : 
Peace to thee and the Church. 

Ans. And with thy spirit. 

\_After a long rubric aboiit giving 
the Pax,] 

Then the Priest, holding the 
Host in both hands, says pri- 
vately before communicating 
himself : 

God the Father, fountain 
and origin of all goodness ; who 
moved with mercy didst will thine 
Only-begotten to descend for us 
to the lower world and to take 
flesli ; the which I, umoorthy, here 
hold in my hands : 

Here he inclines himself to th 
Host, saying : 

1 adore tliee ; I glorify thee 
I praise thee with all the inten 
tiou of my heart ; and pray that 
thou desert not us thy servants ; 
but pardon our sins ; that with a 
pure heart and a chaste body, we 
may merit to serve thee tlie only 
true and living God. Through 
the same Christ our Lord. Amen. 

O Lord Jesu Christ, Son of 
the living God, who, by the will 
of the Father and the cooperation 
of the Holy Ghost, didst give life 


2Ef)E Siarunt fHtssal. STIje Book of ffi^ommon ^rager, 


to the world by thy death ; deliver 
me by this thy most holy Body 
and this thy Blood, from all my 
iniquities and from all evils : and 
make me ever to obey thy com- 
mandments, and never permit me 
to be separated from thee, who 
with God the Father and the 
same Holy Ghost livest and reign- 
est God, world without end. 

May the sacrament of thy Body 
and Blood, O Lord Jesus, which 
I, though unworthy, receive, be 
to me not for judgment and con- 
demnation ; but by thy pity may 
it profit to the health of my body 
and soul. Amen. 

To the Body, let him say, boiving 
down before reception : 

Hail for evermore. Most Holy 
Flesh of Christ ; to me before all 
and above all things sovereign 
sweetness. The Body of our Lord 
Jesus Christ be to me a sinner 
the way and the life. In the 
name + of the Father, and of the 
Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 

Here let him take the body, first 
'inaking a cross with the body 
itself, before his mouth, and 
then say to the blood, ivith 
great devotio7i : 

Hail for ever, Heavenly Drink, 
to me before all and above all 
things sovereign sweetness. The 
Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus 
Christ profit me a sinner for an 
everlasting remedy unto life eter- 
nal. Amen. In the name + of 
the Father, and of the Son, and 
of the Holy Ghost. Amen. 

Here he receives the blood, after 
tohich, bowing himself, let the 
Priest say tvith devotion, the 
following prayer : 

I give thee thanks, O Lord, 
Holy Father, Almighty, Everlast- 
ing God who hast refreshed me 
with the most holy Body and 
Blood of thy Son our Lord Jesus 


QT^e Sarum IHissal. 

Christ, and pray that this sacra- 
ment of our salvation which I an 
unworthy sinner have received 
may not come to me to judgment 
and condemnation for my deserts ; 
but to the advancement of the 
salvation* of my body and soul 
to eternal life. Amen. 

E^c Book o! C0mm0n Praget, 

Here the Priest shall turn Mm 
toward those that come to the 
Holy Communion, and shall 
say : 

You that do truly and earnestly 
repent you of your sins to Al- 
mighty God, and be in love and 
charity with your neighbours, 
and intend to lead a new life, 
following the commandments of 
God, and walking from henceforth 
in his holy ways ; draw near and 
take this holy Sacrament to your 
comfort, make your humble con- 
fession to Almighty God, and to 
his holy Church here gathered 
together in his name, meekly 
kneeling upon your knees. 

[Wlien any are to he communi- 
cated, a tvhite cloth is to be 
held before them by the Aco- 
lytes, and the communicants 
are to repeat the Coufiteor. 

I confess to God, to the Bles- 
sed Mary, to all Saints, and to 
you, father, that I have sinned 
grievously, in thought, word, and 
deed, by my own fault; I be- 
seech Holy Mary, all the Saints 
of God, and you, father, to pray 
for me. 

Then shall this general confes- 
sion he made in the name of 
all those that are minded to 
receive the holy Communion, 
either by one of them, or else 
by one of the Ministers, or by 
the Priest himself, all kneeling 
humbly upon their knees. 

Almighty God, Father of our 
Lord Jesus Clirist, maker of all 
things, judge of all men, we ac- 
knowledge and bewail our mani- 
fold sins and wickedness, which 
we from time to time, most 
grievously have commit! el, by 
thought, word, and deed, against 
thy divine Majesty, provoking 
most justly thy wrath and indig- 
nation against us ; we do ear- 
nestly repent and be heartily 
sorry for these our misdoings ; 
the remembrance of them is griev- 

* The word salutis is given here in the old editions, but is not in Maskell. 


W^z Saturn iiliggal 

Then the Priest says: 

Almighty God 

have mercy upon you, and pardon 
you all yoiir sins, deliver you 
from all evil, preserve and con- 
firm you in good, and bring jo\i 
to everlasting life. 

A?is, Amen. 

The Priest. The Almighty and 
merciful Lord grant you abso- 
lution and remission of all your 
sins, time for true penance and 
amendment of life, the gi'ace and 
consolation of the Holy Ghost. 

Ans. Ameu. (Estcourt.)'] 

2rf)E 53ook of Common Pragcr, 

ous unto us, the burden of them 
is intolerable : have mercy upon 
us, have mercy upon us, most 
merciful Father, for thy Son our 
Lord Jesus Christ's sake, forgive 
us all that is past, and grant that 
we may ever hereafter serve and 
please thee in newness of life, 
to the honour and glory of thy 
name : through Jesus Christ our 
Lord. Amen. 

Then shall the Priest stand tip, 
and turning himself to the 
people, say thus: 

Almighty God, 
our heavenly Father, who of his 
great mercy hath promised for- 
giveness of sins to all them that 
with hearty repentance and true 
faith turn unto liim : 
have mercy upon you, pardon 
and deliver you from all your 
sins, confirm and strengthen you 
in all goodness, and bring you 
to everlasting life : through Jesu.<? 
Christ our Lord. Amen. 

Then shall the Priest also say : 

Hear what comfortable words 
our Saviour Christ saith to all 
that truly turn to him. [Four 
passages of Scripture recited.] 

Then shall the Priest, turning 
him to God'shoard, hneeldoion, 
and say in the name of all 
them that shallreceivethe Com- 
munion, this prayer following : 

We do not presume to come 
to this thy table (O merciful 
Lord) trusting in our own right- 
eousness, but in thy manifold 
and great mercies : we be not 
worthy so much as to gather 
up the crumbs under thy table: 


Ef)t .Sarum iBmnl 

"There is no form of giving 
Communion in the Sarum Missal, 
nor in the Manuale, or in any- 
other of the liturgical books." 

Wtfc ISaok at (Common ^rnocr, 

but thou art the same Lord 
whose property is always to 
have mercy. Grant us therefore 
(gracious Lord) so to eat the flesh 
of thy dear Son Jesus Christ, 
and to drink his blood in these 
holy Mysteries, that we may 
continuall}^ dwell in him, and he 
in us, tliat our sinful bodies may 
be made clean by his body, and 
our souls washed through his 
most precious blood. Amen. 

Then shall the Priest first re- 
ceive the Coinmunio)b in both 
Icinds himself, and next deliver 
it to other Ministers, if any 
he there present {that they 
may he ready to help the chief 
Minister), and after to the 
people. And when he deliv- 
ereth the Sacraynent of the 
body of Christ, he shall say 
to everyone these words: 

The Body of our Lord Jesus 
Christ, which was given for thee, 
preserve thj^ body and soul unto 
everlasting life. 

A^id the Minister delivering the 
Sacrament of the Blood, and 
giving everyone to drink once 
and no onore, shall say: 

The Blood of our Lord Jesus 
Christ, which wati shed for thee, 
preserve thy body and soul unto 
everlasting life. 

Which said, let the Priest go to 
the right [south'] cornier of the 
altar icith the chalice in his 
hands, the fingers joined still as 
before ; and let the sub-deacon 
go to him and j)our into the 

* Scudamore says (Not. Euch. p. 738) that there were no words of ad- 
nnnistration m the Mass because communions were rare. The words, " was 
given /yr thee " (not to be mistaken for ' is given to thee '), are unknown to 
any ancient Liturgy, being taken from a form drawn up by Bucer for the 
Elector of Cologne. The words arc a Prayer (called in the Scotch Liturgy of 
1G37, a ' Benediction ') ; hence, the rubrics belonging to them were translated 
by Alrss. •' utatur hac forma oratiouis," and " sic orabit." Hence, also, the 
direction to ' kneel ', in 1552. 


Srte Sarum ifEissal. 

clialice wine and water ; and 
let the Priest rinse Ms hands 
lest any relics of the body or 
hlood remain on his fingers, 
or in the chalice. 
After the first ablution this 
prayer is said : 
May we receive with a pure 
mind, O Lord, what we have 
taken by the mouth; and of a 
temporal gift may it become to us 
an eternal remedy. 

Here let him wash his fingers 
in the hollow of the chalice 
with the wine poured in by 
the sub-deacon, which having 
been drunk, folloivs theprayer: 

May this communion, O Lord, 
purify lis from crime, and make 
us to be partakers of a heavenly 

After receiving the ablution let 
the Priest place the chalice on 
the paten, so that if aught 
remain it may drain : after 
which, let him say, boiving : 

We adore the sign of the cross, 
through which we have received 
the Sacrament of Salvation. 

Then let him zcash his hands : 
the deacon meanwhile folding 
up the corporals. After the 
Priest has washed his hands 
and returned to the right cor- 
ner of the altar, let the deacon 
hold the chalice to the moiith 
of the Priest, if perchance 
aught of the poured in {ivine) 
remain to be again taken. 

After which, rvith his Ministers, 
let him say the ' Communion.^ 

Taste and see tliat the Lord 
is sweet : blessed is the man that 
liopeth in hiui. 

Wat Boofe ai Comtn0n i^raget, 

Sentences of Holy Scripture, to 
be said or sung every day 
one, after the Holy Commu- 
nion, called the Post-commu- 

If any man will follow me, 
let him forsake himself, and take 
up his cross, and follow me, &C.&C. 


Cl^e Sariim fHissat. 

Then having made the sign of 
the cross on his face let the 
Priest turn him to the people 
and with arms a little raised 
and hands joined, say: 
The Lord be with you. 

And turning again to the altar 
let him say : 
Let us pray. 

Then let him say the post-com- 
m,unio7i : according to the 
number and arrangement of 
the prayers before the Epistle. 
The last of these being finished 
and the cross signed on his 
forehead, let the Priest turn 
himself again toivards the 
people and say: 

The Lord be with you. 

Then the deacon {turning to the 
altar) : 

Let us give thanks unto the 

At other times is said (turning 
to the people) : — 

Go ! It [the Assembly] is dis- 

* Having received, O Lord, these 
helps to our salvation, grant, we 
beseech thee, that we may be 
ever protected by the patronage 
of Blessed Mary ever Virgin, in 
veneration of whom we have made 
these offerings to thy Majesty. 

Hoaveuly Sacraments have we 
received, O Lord, while cele- 
brating the memory of Blessed 
Mary, ever Virgin and Mother of 
God, and of all thy saints ; grant, 
we beseech thee, that what en- 
gages us in time, we may, by the 
aid of their prayers, obtain in the 
joys of eternity. 

2r^e Book of Camtnon drawer, 

Then the Priest shall give thanks 
to God, in the name of all 
them that have communicated, 
turning him first to the people, 
and saying : 

Tlie Lord be with you. 
Ans. And with thy spirit. 

Priest. Let us pray 

Almighty and ever-living God, 
we most heartily thank thee, for 
that thou hast vouchsafed to feed 
us in these holy Mysteries, with 
the spiritual food of the most 
precious body and blood of thy 
Son our Saviour Jesus Christ, 
andhastassuredus {duly receiving 
the same) of thy favour and good- 
ness toward us, and that we be 
very members incorporate in thy 
mystical body, which is the bles- 
sed company of all faithful people, 
and heirs through hope of thy 
everlasting kingdom, by the merits 
of the death and passion of th}^ 
dear Son. We therefore most 
humbly beseech thee, O heavenly 
Father, so to assist us with thy 

* These are two out of the five Post-Communion collects given by Estcourt, 
as a sample of their character. 



2rf)E Sarum iHi'ssal. 

ie^ the Priest, toifli hent tody 
and joined hands, say before 
the midst of the altar, in a 
low voice : 

Let the homage of my service 
be pleasing to Thee, O holy 
Trinity, and grant that this sacri- 
fice which I, unworthy, have 
offered to the eyes of thy Majes- 
ty, may be acceptable to thee, 
and by thy mercy, be a propitia- 
tion for me, and for all for whom 
I have offered it. Who livest, 
&c. Amen. 

T/ie Priest. In the Name + 
of the Father, and of the Son, 
and of the Holy Ghost. Amen. 

STijc Book of Common '^xamvr 

grace, that we may continue in 
that holy fellowship, and do all 
such good works as thou hast 
prepared for us to walk in : 
through, &c. 

Then the Priest, turning him to 
the peojyle, shall let them 
depart with this blessing: 

The peace of God (which pas- 
seth all understanding) keep your 
hearts and minds in the know- 
ledge and love of God, and of his 
Son Jesus Christ our Lord. And 
the blessing of God Almighty, 
the Father, the Son, and the 
Holy Ghost, be amongst you and 
remain with you alway. 

TJien the people shall ansioer: 

g ■ ^n;} ^'6-f' 

It will be seen that while the First Book differed enormously 
from the Missal, its language was ambiguous as to a presence 
" IN those holy mysteries," an expression which recurred three 
times, and has been, in each instance, carefully expunged. Still 
more equivocal was the declaration at the end that " men 
must not think less to be received in pai-t than in the whole, 
but in each of them the whole body." (See Cranmer On Lord's 
Supper, p. 64.) By placing the Invocation before the words 
of Institution, it departed from the order of the "Ancient '' 
liturgies, and so far was favourable to the Romish view. 
The use of sacrificial language, and of the Agnus after the 
consecration and prior to consumption of the elements, coupled 
with the retention of the word " Altar," evidences the divergent 
sentiments of the compilers. So soon as the Romish prelates 
Bonner, Gardiner, Day, Heath, Reps, Voysey, and Tunstall had 
been got rid of, Cranmer and his colleagues Avere enabled to give 
effect to their own wnshes by adopting the Second Prayer Book. 
Only two bishops voted against that book : whereas eight voted 
against the First Book, and five against the Ordinal of 1550. 
Compared Avith the Missal, the First Book was a highly Protes- 
tant production : yet it was, after all, " a compromise which 
satisfied nobody." 

To be obtained at tlie Office of the Church Association, 14, Buckingham Street, Strand, 

London, at tJie price of 2ii eacli or 12s per 100. 
4th Thousand.] 

^ ^^w ^ 

^ "^M 

-<<?) Rilual 8bseFi/aH(ses."^ 



HE learned Dean of €:anterfeuiy in liis article 
on prosecution for Ritual observances, in the 
Churchman of February, represents the Church 
Association as wholly bad ! — He has nothing 
good to say for it. The policy of the Counwt, 
which is said to be " compulsion," is compared 
with that of the lawyers who brought about 
the crucifixion of our Lord, and of the Pagan 
Roman Emperors who persecuted the Christians 
to the death. The Church of Rome is wiser now than the 
Church Association who shut up Mr. Green in Lancaster 
prison ! — How could so good a man as Dean Payne Smith have 
found it in his heart to suggest such dreadful comparisons, or 
dip his pen in ink to write and publish such hard sayings ? 

The Dean writes, and it is almost the only passage I quote 
with entire concurrence, — " The Ritual struggle carried on during 
the last forty years has been one involving vast and important 

No. CXIV.] 

issues. It has been no mere controversy as to the meaning of a 
rubric, or the outside form of public worship; but doctrines which 
concern the central truths of Christianity have actually and con- 
fessedly been at stake." The Dean himself, till within a few 
months, engaged in this struggle, and in his Cathedral city 
espoused the cause of the Church Association, urging many good 
reasons for supporting it, and it is only since the Protestant 
Churchmen's Alliance has been called into existence, that he 
forsook his old love, whom now he seems to hate, in espousing his 

Let us examine some of the reasons he assigns for this change 
of affection and attitude. 

1. " The mind of the Church has been called away from its 
proper field of duty, and the strength of one portion of her 
children given, not to the earnest doing of their own work, but 
the endeavour to compel others to desist from what they hold 
to be legal and within their corporate rights." But is a man, or 
any body of men (even though their course of action has been 
adjudicated upon and pronounced illegal and a public wrong !), 
to be permitted to persist therein to the detriment of the common 
good, because in their opinion they have a " right " to do so ? Is 
restraint in all cases a " compulsion "to be censured ? Is self- 
protection no moral duty, and the protection of the young and 
weak unable to protect themselves, and dependent upon others to 
step in and succour them ? Admit the truth of the Dean's 
statement, and the doors of our gaols and lunatic asylums may 
be thrown wide open, and what would soon become of any 
peaceful and well-ordered community ? True ! some incidental 
advantages might be the result ! Taxes might be lightened, 
officials and police now employed in the protection of life and 
property, and in the furtherance of the ends of justice, might be 
employed on other duties, but what would be the result ? Need 
I apply the illustration to the case before us ? Shut up the 
Ecclesiastical Courts ; dissolve our Protestant societies ; divert 
the funds of the Church Association now spent in the protection 
of our churches and Church services from being changed into 
Mass-houses and Masses ; let the Ritualistic clergy and the 
English Church Union have their own way in the assertion of 
their supposed " rights " in the parish and parish church, the 
family, and the nation ; let protective and corrective measures 
be cancelled, and all fear of restraint be abolished, in the face of 
Archbishop Tait's " Conspiracy " and of the English Church 
Union — the formation of which made the Church Association a 
necessity — and who can help seeing that the blessed Reformation 
which o\xr forefathers handed down to us, would soon be ours no 
longer to hand down to posterity ? 

2. Again, we read, " Decrees of law courts appeal to no moral 
faculty. They scarcely att'ect the intellect, for the wisest sum- 
ming-up of the most experienced judge does not prevent the 
losing litigant from trying his chance on an appeal. They are 
not expected to influence the conscience," &c. This, indeed, may 
be true in criminal cases in respect of thieves and murderers ! 
But surely there is a distinction to be drawn. In ritual cases, 
to carry a case from the lower to the higher Court, whether on 
the part of the prosecution or the defence, is a course not 
necessarily to be deprecated. It may be a course approved by 
the presiding judge, expedient, and even necessary and com- 
mendable ! But when final judgment has been given, and the 
Supreme Court has spoken, then obedience to the law is the 
duty of every loyal citizen and Christian man. The Church 
Association recognizes that duty, and has never failed as a body 
of Churchmen to accept the decision. This cannot be afiirmed 
of the Ritualistic clergy or of the English Church Union, which, 
through thick and thin, has too often espoused their cause. One 
would, indeed, have supposed it otherwise. I remember how 
the late Archbishop, when, in a certain case, he gave his sanction 
to legal procedure, added — he could not conceive how a clergy- 
man could do otherwise than obey when the law had been 
declared. It was always assumed that with clergymen of the 
Church of England a final judgment would be loyally recognized. 
as a settlement of the contention. But self-assertion as to the 
merits of Ritual cases has known no bounds with certain clergy- 
men, who, supported by their " party," have courted prison rather 
than obey. And seeing that in any well-ordered State the law 
can never be broken deliberately and persistently with impunity, 
it was not the Church Association that sent them to prison for 
" contempt of court," but the court itself, which they dared to 
withstand with the penalty of transgi'ession full in view. Depriva- 
tion, not imprisonment for persistent contumacy was the result 
anticipated. That it was not realized was no fault of the pro- 
secution ; yet what storms of wrathful indignation have been 
raised against them on this account. It is time the matter were 
fairly stated and better understood. The Dean of Canterbury 
has shown scant justice to the Church Association in his remarks 
upon this part of the case. The disgrace of the imprisonment 
belongs not to the Church Association, but to the recalcitrant 
clergy who gloried in their shame, and still more to abettors who 
encouraged them in their contumacy, with a view to bring Church 
authority, and the ecclesiastical law that pronounced against 
them, into disrepute. 

3. But the Dean objects altogether to appeal to ecclesiastical 
law in the matter of ritual transgression. He tells us : " The 

riglit appeal in all moral and religious questions is not to the law 
courts, but to the good sense and enlightened conscience of the 
thoughtful and religious people of our land." Certainly (I reply); 
take that coui'se first. And this is just what the Church Asso- 
ciation did. But, unhappily, all people in the land, if "religious," 
are not " thoughtful," nor have they all an enlightened conscience, 
nor are they all blessed with good sense. What is to be done 
with such as will transgress ? The law was made for such. They 
are the very persons who must be brought under its control. The 
wisdom and authority of both Church and State are concentrated 
in the law of the land. The laws are sanctioned by Parliamen- 
tary enactment, and the Courts appointed for their administra- 
tion are constitutional, and must be held to be constitutional till 
proved otherwise. To appeal to the " Peojyle" independently of 
the Law Courts is pure Communism. It seems to me that the 
advocacy of such a course of procedure can only produce revo- 
lution and disaster, whether in Church or State. The Dean him- 
self admits that the decision of even the enlightened, and 
sensible, and religious among the people might not be the right 
one ; for, he adds, they may have been imperfectly "instructed," 
and may be " influenced by feeling ; " and he never hints at the 
" Law " according to which their decision is to be given, and so 
he leaves us without law, without judge — in a word, a prey to 
Anarchy. General " approbation," popularity, either of the man 
or his cause, is to win the day. Can he advocate the Vox populi, 
vox Dei ? 

4. Further, it is very unjustly assumed that Protestant Church- 
men spend all their strength of body and mind and their money 
in litigation, neglecting spiritual work at home and abroad. 
"By their fruits ye shall know them " ; and (writes the Dean) 
" where the fruits are ritual prosecution the general opinion will 
be that the trees that bear them must be of a thorny kind." 
The representation is that the Church Associationist is a thorn 
tree, and other Churchmen, those opposed, are fruit trees, and 
that the fruit is preferable to the thorn ! This certainly is not 
very complimentary, but is it charitable ? Is it true ? I will 
not, in reply, mention the names of many who now sit round 
the council table and are responsible for the action of the Church 
Association. It would be invidious so to do. Yet if the Chair- 
men of the Council are taken into account, let me ask — were 
the late Mr. Joseph Hoare, or the late Mr. Andrews thorn trees, 
such as the Dean depicts ? Did the Dean know anything of 
the late Mr. John Martin, for years the laborious chairman of 
the Church Pastoral Aid Sub-Committee, the mainspring of the 
Colonial and Continental Church Society, the indefatigable and 
most generous secretary of the Highbury Training Institution, 

the founder of and the constant teacher in the celebrated schools 
in Baldwin's Gardens in the parish of St. Alban's, Holborn,, — to 
whom South London is at this present time indebted for one or 
more of the Evangelical churches that are still so greatly needed 
there, whose life and whose fortune were spent in doing good, 
and by whom the litigation he for years " promoted " in the cele- 
brated case of Martin v. Mackonochie was undertaken as a 
necessary, but to my knowledge most uncongenial, task ? But all 
was endured patiently and lovingly for the sake of Christ, and 
the truth of His Gospel. I ask, is Mr. John Martin justly num- 
bered, not among the fruit trees, but among the thorns ? If the 
Dean (as I am sure he does) respects and values the Churchmen 
who support our missionary societies and are devoted to the 
spread of the Gospel at home and abroad (though they care little 
for " church decoration," the flowers, the crosses, the candles, 
&c., and are content to live and die unrecognized by ecclesiasti- 
cal authority, conscious of the approval of their heavenly 
Master !) let me assure him he will find many of them still among 
those staunch supporters of the Church of the Reformation who 
guide the councils of the Church Association, and ax'e prepared 
to defend the worship, and rites, and ceremonies, and Protestant 
teaching as enshrined in the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church 
of England, as long as life, and health, and means, and oppor- 
tunity permit them. 

5. "The few extreme men on either side " are spoken of by 
the Dean in terms of reprobation. I will not mention names on 
the Ritualistic side. Let the records of the Church Courts be 
searched, and the list will be found too long, of priests who 
have brought no credit to the Church by their mimicry of the 
profane and gorgeous Mass of the Church of Rome. On the 
other hand, where is the record of Evangelical names who have 
been tried and condemned for any similar breach of ritual ? If 
the Ritualists have introduced Romish vestments and been ad- 
monished, — where have Evangelicals abjured the surplice ? If 
the Ritualists have added water to the wine at the sacramental 
table and been admonished, — where has an Evangelical omitted 
the manual acts ? If Ritualists have set up stone altars and 
been admonished, — where ceremonially has an Evangelical 
clergyman even brought the holy table into " the body of 
the church " (which is perfectly lawful), or stood behind it 
looking westward, and been even challenged ? As it regards 
Church ritual, it is an injustice to speak of extreme men on 
either side. Evangelicals have no extreme men (that I have ever 
heard of) guilty of wilful deviation from recognized rubrical 
observance. Were such deviation attempted or abetted by any 
Evangelical clergyman he would need no episcopal monition. I 

am persuaded lie would soon be called to order by bis Evangelical . 
brethren, and if he ventured to persist in such conduct he t 
would stand out a marked man in his folly. We have no such ! 
" extreme men " as the Dean seems to assume. But Ritualistic 
churches can show them by the dozen, and the English Church 
Union gives them countenance and support, and I respectfully 
suggest to the Dean of Canterbury whether the term as he has 
used it in reference to the Evangelical clergy is charitable or 

6. Mention is further made " of the great quiet party who form 
the bulk of the clergy " and of their place in the present contro- 
versy. The Dean's picture is quite interesting. As a rule, he 
says, they are well acquainted with Scripture, aud more or less 
studious. They are fairly well acquainted with the great writers 
of our Church, but read perhaps too exclusively serial literature, 
and are probably influenced too much in their judgment by news- 
papers ! We are thus transplanted to the quietude of a country 
life. We see the oxen browsing in the fat pastures, and (as in 
the well-known fable) we hear the croaking frogs whom we take 
in the Dean's allusion to be the Church Associationists — those 
combatants who, " like the excitement of the fray," but whose 
noise the quiet oxen dislike exceedingly ! Is it suggested that 
" the quiet ones " who form the bulk of the clergy turn upon the 
noisy frogs, and tread them down to death ? In other words, 
that the Church Association had better take timely warning, or 
they may soon come to a bad end ? Ah ! But the " quiet clergy " 
would soon discover their mistake ! They would punish the 
wrong party ! Their conduct would resemble that of the crowd 
who arrested the constable and locked him up, while they let the 
burglar escape. 

7. But let me ask the very Rev. the Dean, are not the hints he 
gives as applicable to the new Protestant Chui'chmen's Alliance, 
of which he is one of the founders, as to the Church Association ? 
Last year the P.C.A. also entered on " the fray." The Society 
was inaugurated by a service in St. Martin's-in-the-Fields, where 
the Dean gave an address with special reference to the sacrament 
of the Lord's Supper, which was subsequently administered on 
the occasion. The Society was launched in the afternoon at a 
special meeting in Exeter Hall, Lord Grimthorpe in the chair. 
The Dean took part, and his name now stands prominently on 
the Executive Committee. In town and country, meetings are 
being held in support of the P.C.A., especially in the rural 
diocese of Chester, whose Bishop has vetoed the Alliance, as 
the Alliance threatens to deprive his Lordship of the episcopal 
Veto in ecclesiastical prosecutions. Not only so ; the P.C.A. is 
agitating, in cases of contumacy, for the substitution of summary 

deprivation in place of imprisonment as the more suitable 
punishment : Now this is a distinct recognition by the P.O. A. of 
Ritual prosecution as a remedial measure for the present distress ; 
and whether the P.O. A. engage in " actual prosecution " or not, 
by removing the two great obstacles which have hitherto brought 
Ritual prosecutions into disrepute it undoubtedly will give 
most effective assistance to the work of the C.A., which the 
Dean stigmatizes as " fatal and foolish, contrary to the whole 
spirit of Christianity, the teaching of our Lord, and of St. Paul, 
and of our Church ! " Is it consistent on the Dean's part to con- 
demn the C.A. for carrying into effect the very work which the 
P.C.A. (of which he is so staunch a supporter) is founded avowedly 
to bring about ! If " the great quiet party," (who it is affirmed) 
form the bulk of the clergy, are incited to stamp out the C.A., 
are they not likely to stamp out the P.C.A. also ? Do not the 
Dean's arguments apply as forcibly to the one as to the other ? 
Is not the same thing as " foolish and fatal and contrary to Chris- 
tianity " in the one as in the other ? When the Dean has shown 
the reasonableness of his censure of the Church Association, and 
of his approval of the P.C.A. for the very same policy, and that 
his censure of prosecution by the C.A. is not negatived by his 
approval of p)<^'>'i ci'*''^ parcel of the same thing by the P.C.A., for, 
why abolish the Episcopal Veto except to make prosecution 
all the easier ? it will be time enough to consider his quotations 
from Holy Scripture to prove appeal to law, to be " litigation " 
in an oppix)brious sense, to show their inapplicability, and on 
what a foundation of sand his whole argument rests. 

8. I must, however, notice the Dean's assei'tion that in moral 
and religious questions the Law Courts are not the right tribunals. 
But what saith the XXVI. Article ? " It appertaineth to the 
discipline of the Church that inquiry be made of evil ministers, 
and that they be accused by those that have knowledge of their 
offences ; and, finally, being found guilty, by just judgment be 
deposed." Also Article XXXIV., " Whosoever, through his 
private judgment, willingly and purposely, doth openly break 
the traditions and ceremonies of the Church, which be not 
repugnant to the Word of God, and be ordained and approved 
by common authority, is and ought to be rebuked openly (that 
others may fear to do the like,) as he that offendeth against the 
common order of the Church, and hurteth the authority of the 
magistrate, and woundeth the consciences of the weak brethren." 
The second Homily for Whit Sunday is to the same purport — 
" The true Church hath always three notes or marks whereby it 
is known — pure and sound doctrine, the sacraments ministered 
according to Christ's holy institution, and the right use of eccle- 
siastical discipline." To quote but one Scripture, read xviii. 

Matthew 17, wliere the Lord Himself directs in reference to 
Church members who offend — " If he shall neglect to hear 
them (the two or three witnesses) tell it unto the Church : but if 
he neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto thee as a 
heathen man and a publican." Surely, a court of appeal is here 
authorized and commanded by Christ Himself, an ecclesiastical 
law court such as that before which the Bishop of Lincoln is 
now arraigned. 

9. One more criticism, which I heartily wish I might avoid — 
" These prosecutions are not to resist wrongs done to us, but are 
got up by a central society using the names of ' aggrieved par- 
ishioners ' to settle matters of opinion. . . If there must be 
jDrosecutions ... let them at least be honest, carried on by the 
persons who give their names." This is no better than a clap- 
trap appeal fouuded on popular misrepresentation. That an 
advocate engaged to damage the prosecution and bring it under 
obloquy, should be guilty of such liberty of speech, is only just 
what might be anticipated. Sensible men in reading the news- 
paper report, if they did not skip it, would know the nature of 
such a representation and appreciate it accordingly. It is diffe- 
rent as read fi'om the pen of the Dean of Canterbury, written 
at his study- desk, and with the calmness and kindness and 
Christian feeling and good judgment with which we have been 
ever wont to accredit him. 

Let us weigh his statements : — 

i. These prosecutions are not to resist wrongs done to us ! Pos- 
sibly so, in any strictly personal sense ; but it may be a personal 
wrong to those with whom we are nearly connected, and few are 
the families that have not siiffered from " the wrong''' of Ritual- 
ism. It has proved a root of bitterness in yfhole families by the 
introduction of religious dissensions — seducing some away to 
Rome, driving others to the Plymouth Brethren, and in many 
an instance occasioning that asperity of temper and warmth of 
•speech that eats like a cancer into family love, and makes a 
once happy home a scene of miserable contention. Ritualism is 
a wrong to a Parish ! In how many cases has the introduction 
of Ritualistic worship into the Church divided and scattered a 
united and prosperous congregation ? Look at our own Chui'ch 
of England ! What a divided Church has she become since 
Ritualism raised her hateful head amongst us, disintegrating the 
whole body — her Laity ! as in the case of the English Church 
Union and our Protestant societies ; her Clergy ! in array against 
each other. Catholic versus Protestant, and vice versa ; our 
Bishops ! one now on his trial at Lambeth ; and it was Ritual- 
ism that did the mischief. In one church an altai', and the Mass, 
and confessional ; in another the table and Holy Communion ! 


In one pulpit the doctrine of the Thirty-nine Articles faithfully 
preached ; in another the Reformation denounced as a bane, and 
all Roman doctrine set forth, except pei'haps Papal Infallibility 
and the Immaculate Conception ! And is this, and much more 
than this, no wrong done to you and me ? Is all this a mere 
matter of " opinion " ? 

ii. " Got up by a central society,"! Does the Dean suppose 
that the C.A. sends agents through the country to find out 
causes of complaint ? If he knew the correspondence that 
reaches the secretary, and the appeals for advice and help the 
council so often have before them from " aggrieved parishioners " 
living in all parts of England, town and country, he would soon 
be convinced that the C.A. had no need to "get up" — in any 
sense of originating prosecution ! Then, how can congregations 
protect the public service of their church from innovation, and 
travesty, and idolatry too often forced upon them by the Ritual- 
istic priest, and a little knot of so-called " Catholics" imported 
into the parish, if their appeals for aid pass unheeded, and they 
are left to their unaided efforts ? Without the aid of a central 
Society the whole field of the Church would be left a prey to the 
Ritualistic foe. That combination is a necessity, all experience 
proves, and common sense would suggest. The Ritualists ac- 
knowledge this, or why did they institute the Church Union 
which the C.A. was formed to resist ? The Bishop is no pro- 
secutor ! He is, in the first place, to judge of the propriety of 
legal appeal, and if uncalled for, he " vetoes " the appeal. To 
say that all pi'osecution must rest with the Bishop, and that the 
laity are to be reduced to a state of silent inactivity, may sound 
very " Church-like ; " but in the first place it would make the 
Church of England a,Prelatic Church rather than Episcopal, and 
in the next place put a burden upon the Episcopate they were 
never consecrated to bear, and to expect of them the fulfilment 
of duties they were never trained to discharge. Church and 
State are happily united in England, and in all cases, Eccle- 
siastical and Civil, Her Majesty in her courts of law reigns 

iii. " Let honest people carry on the prosecution," ! The pi-ose- 
cution must consist of parishioners and householders, and in 
many a parish the selection must be necessarily very limited. 
And if the Dean knew the annoyances and persecution that 
haunt a parishioner bold enough to give his name in a case of 
ritual prosecution he would only wonder that any one ventures 
to come forward. The whole quiver full of arrows is at once 
discharged against him by every ritualistic medium of approach. 
The Dean of Canterbury is, I am sure, a merciful man, but it 
seems not even he, has mercy on an " aggrieved parishioner " 


who stands forth as a prosecutor, nor on a -witness, however 
respectable a man, who stands up to give his evidence ! Why 
should the prosecution be deemed dishonest because in part or in 
whole the expenses of the suit for which they make themselves 
responsible, are drawn fi'om a common fund ? Why should 
A or B bear a burden for the good of a parish and a church, 
which a Bishop shrinks from undertaking as ruinous to his 
income ? Why not allow others who feel an interest in the case 
to fulfil the apostolic precept, "Bear ye one another's burdens, 
and so fulfil the law of Christ " ? Then as to witnesses ! It is 
not every man that has sufficient ecclesiastical knowledge to under- 
take such a duty. Some special technical qualification is required. 
Nor has every one, however good his education, the presence of 
mind and courage to enter the witness-box, and with justice to 
the case, so give and sustain his evidence that a trained advocate 
should gain no undue advantage from his inexperience. To neg- 
lect, in a case of prosecution, common-sense precautions which 
the Dean appears to regard as wanting in " honesty " would, in 
fact, make prosecution nugatory, and leave the Ritualist in full 
and complete possession. I, for one, record my admiration of " the 
prosecution," and of the witnesses, however assailed by counsel 
and contumeliously reproached, for their courage and the patriot- 
ism they display in the discharge of the difficdlt duties they fulfil. 

iv. " Let the prosecution be carried on by those who give their 
names," writes the Dean ! What is there anonymous in a ritual 
prosecution ? Is a false name ever assumed ? It seems to me 
impossible. And yet the Dean flings this stone at the Church 
Association ! The names of the aggrieved parishioners are pub- 
lished in the papers every time the trial is reported. The wit- 
nesses ? They give their names, and occupation, and residence, 
and the " defence " turns them inside out, over and over again, 
with no very complimentary remarks. The Church Association ? 
Any report will give the names of every gentleman on the coun- 
cil, of every subscriber, and of every officer from the chairman 
and secretary to the official in the lowest rank. What other 
names would the Dean ask for ? 

V. Might I ask the Dean what " consensus " he would suggest 
to " settle what are the reasonable limits of the Ritual sanctioned 
by our Church " ? 

Have we no rubrics already acknowledged and generally obeyed, 
except by a faction ? In case of doubtful interpretation, have 
we no court of final appeal ? Has it not already spoken ? 
Would the Dean prefer convocation ? Which ? Northern or 
Southern ? Are they ever likely to agree ? or, as constituted, 
can they be expected to secure submission ? Let me respect- 
fully ask the Dean : — 


Can any Court have a better claim to the obedience of loyal 
Churchmen than the Queen in Council ? 

With sincere respect and affection for so good and learned a 
dignitary of our Church as the present Dean of Canterbury, I 
entreat his patient consideration of the criticisms I have ventured 
to offer on the tone and argument he has used in his paper on 
ritual prosecution. Dr. Payne Smith has long been an acknow- 
ledged and trusted leader among Evangelical and Protestant 
Churchmen, But, to my mind, his paper is most unfriendly to 
our contention with Ritualism, and far more damaging to the 
Protestant interests of our Church than any strictures the 
Ritualistic press could publish. 

Let it not, however, be forgotten that thousands of good 
Churchmen are in conscience pledged before God and their 
country never to tolerate Ritualism, accepted and incorporated 
as the doctrine and worship of the national and established 
Church of this country. We may deplore defection of Evan- 
gelical and Protestant Churchmen and be sorely grieved thereby, 
but the conflict can never end in the triumph of Ritualism. An 
Episcopal Church in England may in the course of time exchange 
our Protestant Prayer-book for the first Prayer-book of Edward 
VI, — or introduce the latter as an alternative service book — but it 
will not be the Established Church, nor the undivided Episcopal 
Church of the land. A return to the sacerdotalism of Rome in 
any shape would deprive the Church of the respect and affection 
of the people and seal her fate as a national Church, A national 
Church is indeed a precious heritage, but distinctively it must be 
the Church of the Reformation — Episcopal but not Prelatic. 
Let us be faithful and bold ; and whatever contumely may await 
us, contend to the last that the Church of England remain Pro- 
testant and Evangelical, according to the teaching and worship 
of our Book of Common Prayer. 

To be obtained at <l>e Office of the Church Association, 14, Buckinsham Street Strand 
London, at the price of Sd per dozen, or 4s firf per 100. ' ' 

4th Thousand.] 

No. CXY. 


Bead at the Conference of Novemher 2Q>tJi and 27 ik, 
1867, at Willises Booms, London. 

We, the Council of the Church Association, having 
convened this Conference for the discussion of the 
existing circumstances of the Church, make the 
following declaration : — 

We avow our cordial attachment to the United Church 
of England and Ireland, as by law established, as being 
alike Scriptural in her doctrine and Apostolical in her 
order. We accept her Articles as the basis of mem- ^th canon. 

^ Article VI. 

bership, because they are " agreeable to God's Word,'' 
being such as can either be " read therein or proved 

While we freely allow to every member of the Church 
the same liberty of conscience, within the latitude of her 
Articles and other Formularies, w^hich we claim for our- 
selves, we protest against the public inculcation, by Clergy- 
men ministering within her pale, of doctrines repugnant 
to the letter and the spirit of her authorized Formularies. 

The doctrines against which we specially protest at the 
present time, are as follows : — 

1st. That the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper is ci.arceof Bishcp 

of Salisbury, 

a sacrifice for sin and an oblation to God the Evid"ncVo"/^' 

Kev. W. J. lier- 

Father of the body and blood of Christ, corre- nett, beforctiie 


sponding on earth to the intercession of our ^,^^°^^^^ of tiie 

Bisbop of Sali.s- 

Lord and Master in Heaven. bmv, isc;, y- 


Bp. of Salisbury's 
Charge, p. 75. 

Declaration of 21 
May 30, 1867. 

Bishop of Salis* 
bury's Charge, 
pp. 75-79. 

Bishop of Sails- 

burv's Charge, 

pp. 59, 81. 
IJev. W. J. Ben- 


Ditto, Plea for 


p. 14. 

Bp. of Salisbury's 
pp. 24,56, 59,61 

2nd. That the body and blood of Christ are objectively 
present, under the outward visible part or sign, 
or form of bread and wine. 

3rd. That the wicked receive the body of Christ in 
the use of the Lord's Supper, albeit they do 
not receive it to salvation. 

4th. That Ministers of the Church of England are 
Sacrificing Priests, representatives of the Great 
Head of the Church, and exercise by delegation 
His powers and prerogatives. 

5th. That, in the exercise of these powers, the Clergy 
of the Church of England possess judicial au- 
thority to forgive sin, and that the forgiveness 
of sin is not complete without the absolution of 
the Priest. 


pp. 54, 56, 64. 

6th. That in order to exercise the disciplinary 
powers of their office, for the exclusion of un- 
believing or impenitent persons from Commu- 
nion, Clergymen of the Church of England are 
authorized to hear Confessions, as an habitual 
part of religious practice, and to give formal 
absolution from sin. 

Declaration of 
21 Clergymen, 
May 30, 1867. 

Bennett's Plea 
for Toleration, 
p. 14. 

7th. That, "Christ Himself, really and truly, but 
spiritually and. ineffably, present in the Sacra- 
ment, is therein to be adored" (that is, under 
the form of bread and wine). 

We utterly reject the seven doctrines above enumerated, 
inasmuch as they are innovations on the faith once 

delivered to the Saints, and are ^'grounded upon no Article xxii. 
warranty of Scripture, but rather repugnant to the Word 
of God." 

We protest against the attempt to represent these doc- 
trines as the doctrines of the Church of England, not only 
because her authorized Formularies do not contain them. Articles xxv, 
but also because they specifically exclude and condemn 

Considering (^1) that the Thirty-nine Articles were put 
forth by the joint authority of the Crown and of Convocation, Royai reciara- 
for the avowed purpose of avoiding diversity of doctrine; (2) preflxea to the 
that the Royal declaration " prohibits the least difference 
from the said Articles,'^ and requires them to be accepted in 
their "plain andfull meaning,'^ "the literal and grammatical 
sense ;'' (3) that every member of the Church of England 
in holy orders is bound by virtue of his subscription 36th Canor.. 
to the 36th Canon to the acceptance of the Articles as 
" agreeable to God's Word ;" we publicly declare our 
conviction, that the teaching of doctrines, alike beyond 
the scope of the Articles, and repugnant to their contents, 
is inconsistent with faithful membership of the Church of 

We recognize in the attempt to teach these doctrines 
within the pale of the Church of England an organized 
effort, in some cases openly avowed, to change the doc- 
trinal basis of the Church, as established at the Reforma- m™f''radrey 
tion, and to bring back that " Corruption of Popery," PhliipoVEx- 
which our forefathers deliberately abolished, and against 
which many of them witnessed unto death. 

We declare that such variations from the doctrinal 
teaching of the Church of England, in her authorized 
Formularies, are a violation of the basis of her union 
with the State ; are calculated to alienate the affection 
and confidence of all true Protestants; and to brino- 
down the displeasure of Almighty God upon the Church 
and Nation. 


We declare it to be our object to maintain tbe Church 
of England on her existing doctrinal basis, and we pledge 
ourselves to use every constitutional means to defend the 
integrity of her teaching, and the Apostolic simplicity of 
h^r worship. 

With that object we call upon our brethren of the 
Clergy and Laity of the Church, who are attached, in com- 
mon with ourselves, to the principles of the Reformation, 
as being the principles of the Word of God, to combine 
with us in resisting by common and organized action the 
introduction of mediaeval corruptions into the teaching of 
the Church of England, and the re -introduction of the 
superstitious rites of the Church of Rome into her practice. 

14, Buckingham Street, Strand, 
London, W.C. 

To be obtained at the Office of the Church Association, 14, Buckingham Street, Strand, Loiulon, 
By Subscribers, for distribution, free. By others at the price of 3d per dozen, or Is Cd per 100. 

45tli Thousand.] 








« tL^TXs " '' °lf '""f " *"' ^^""^ f"'^ "■« Administration of 
" kltil ^tvT' ; *^' Communicants shonld receive the same 

«humte^:„i . r, ',"' "'" ™'"'*' *■" " signification of our 
humble and grateful acknowledgement of tbe beneSts of Christ 

" or w"'° °.f "f""^ ^^"^''"^' "°<^ f" *<= avoiding of s™h 
pro.anahon and disorder in the holy Commnnion. as might other 
v,.se ensue;) yet, lest the same kneeling should by anypersons 

<'oSnac°vh '"""'" ''' »"™"^' - -* »' "^-rd' 
"Tha th7r;h ""7=*™"* ""d -iVaved; It is hereby declared, 

" unto the S r/T "V"'^"'''"^' " °"SM to be done, either 

unto the Sacramental Bread or Wine there bodily received or 
uno any Corporal Presence of Chrisfs natural Flesh and Blo'od 

" rill f f r r"" '"'' ^"* "•'"^'■^ »™ i- ""'i^ ™y 

natural ubstances, and therefore may not be adored- (for thai 

•" Xai B^' 'd pV'^r" °f ^" ^^"'■f'" <^^™'--^) -^ ^ 

• ™ hi fb """^ °'^°" ^""°™- '^I'"'* are in Heaven, and 

not here ; it bemg agamst the truth of Christ's natural Bodv o be 
at one time in more places than one." 

ARTICLE XXVIlI.-Of the Lord's Supper. 
The Supper of the Lord is not only a sign of the love that 
C nst,aos ought to have among themselves one to another but 
rather .s a Sacrament of our Eedemption by Christ's death in.o 

Tame he B:e:d h", "'"'X' ™'""'^' ™^ """ f'^*' -->" 
same the Bread which we break is a partaking of the Bodr of 

BWd If Chrilf "'=^ ''' '"" "' ^'-^"»" ■' " P-«i"»" o/t^l 
Transubstantiation (or the change of the substance of Bread and 
W ne) in the Supper of the Lord, cannot be proved by holy Writ 

na" u« IT'T' *° 't' '''f ™^* "' ^""P'™' "verLowetrie" 
nature of a Sacrament, and hath given occasion to many supersti- 

79 • 

The Body of Christ is given, taken, and eaten, in the Supper, only 
after an heavenly and spiritual manner. And the mean whereby the 
Body of Christ is received and eaten in the Supper is Faith. 

The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper was not by Christ's ordinance 
reserved, carried about, lifted up, or worshipped. 

ARTICLE XXXI.— 0/ the one Oblation of Christ finished 
upon the Cross. 
The Offering of Christ once made is that perfect redemption, 
propitiation, and satisfection, for all the sins of the whole world, both 
original and actual ; and there is none other satisfaction for sin, but 
that aloue. Wherefore the sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was 
commonly said, that the Priest did offer Christ for the quick and 
the dead, to have remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables, 
and dangerous deceits. 

Question. Why was the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper ordained ? 
Answer. Eor the continual remembrance of the sacrifice of the 
death of Christ, and of the benefits which we receive thereby. 

" But, before all other things, this we must be sure of especially, 
that this supper be in such wise done and ministered, as our Lord 
and Saviour did, and commanded to be done ; as his holy apostles 
used it ; and the good fathers in tlie primitive church frequented it. 
For, as that worthy man St. Ambrose saith, " he is unworthy of the 
Lord, that otherwise doth celebrate that mystery than it was deli- 
vered by him. Neither can he be devout, that otherwise doth 
presume than it was given by the author." We must then take 
heed, lest, of the memory, it be made a sacrifice ; lest, of a com- 
munion, it be made a private eating ; lest, of two parts, we have 
Dut one ; lest, applying it for the dead, we lose the fruit that be 
alive. Let us rather in these matters follow the advice of Cyprian 
in the like cases, that is, " cleave fast to the first beginning, hold 
fast the Lord's tradition, do that in the Lord's commemoration 
which he himself did, he himself commanded, and his apostles 
confirmed." — Homily on the worthy receiving and reverent esteeming 
of the Sacrament of the lody and blood of Christ, p. 414. 

To be obtaiiicil at the Otfice of the Church Association, 14, Buckingham Street, Strarid, London. 
By Subscribers, for distribution, free. By others at 2d per dozen, or Is per 100. 

51st Thousand.] 



Successors, in the Apostolic office, the Apostles have none. 
As witnesses of the Resurrection — as dispensers of miraculous 
gifts, — as inspired oracles of Divine Revelation, — they have no 
successors. But as Members, — as Ministers, — as Governors—' 
of Christian Communities, their successors are the regularly 
admitted Members, — the lawfully ordained Ministers, — the 
regular and recognised Governors, of a regularly subsisting 
Christian Church, — especially of a Church which, conforming 
in fundamentals, — as I am persuaded ours does, — to Gospel- 
principles, claims and exercises no rights beyond those which 
have the clear sanction of our great Master, as being essentially 
implied in the very character of a community. — {ArchbisJiop 
Whately's Kingdom of Christ.) 

May the members of a Church which our Reform(3rs cleansed 
of so much corruption, and placed on its true basis, have the 
grace to pi'ofifc by their example, and follow out their funda- 
mental principles; labouring to be apostolical '^not in mere 
words and names," but in deed and truth ; actuated by the 
same spirit which was found in those great and good men, so 
far as they decreed what is agreeable to God's word, and to the 
" pure and peaceable wisdom that is from above." And es- 
pecially may all who profess Christian principles be careful to 
guard themselves and others against the two most prevailing 
errors of these days ; the two kinds of encroachments on the 
-egitimate rights of a Christian ; on the one side by pre- 
sumptuous and self-sufficient irregularities, and defiance of 
lawful authority ; and by the pretensions of supposed " An- 
tiquity" and "Tradition" on the other; that they may be 
#'iiabled under the Divine blessing, to carry into effect more 
j,nd more fally, ffed to bring to completion '' all the holy 
desires, all the good counsels, and all the just works" of 
our Reformers, and of all other our predecessors, as many as 
have endeavoured in simplicity and truth, to conform to the 
instruction of our Divine Master and his Apostles. {Idem.) 

To be obtained at tlie Officii of the ChurchAssociation, 14, Buckingham Street.Strand Londoa. 

By Subscribers, fm- distribution, free. By others, at Id per doz., or 0<? per 100. 
41st Thousand.] 

N. cxviil LORD SANDON 



The following is a coj>y of Lord Sandon's Speech oU Sacerdotalism, at th» 
Wolverliami>ton Congress, Oct. 4th, 18G7, re2}rlnted, from the authorized report. 

Viscount Sandon. — I have not attended the preceding Cliurcli Con- 
gresses, so that I do not quite know what is the position whicli a speaker 
is expected to assume on your platform. Is he expected to say only what 
he thinks will suit the opinions of the majority of those he addresses, or ia 
he to say honestly what he believes to be true ? — what he thinks himself, 
or what will please his audience? (Cries of" What you think yourself.") 
Very well, then. I will freely remark upon what I believe to be some 
most important hindrances to Church progress. Now, if we consider 
for a moment this part of tlie world oul}^ it is impossible, for a Stafford- 
shire resident like myself, not to be aware that this platform has not 
contained, and that these discussions have not been aided by the speeches 
of a large class of laymen whom we see taking the lead at the ordinary 
business meetings which abound in this our populous and active county 
of Stafford. They are devoted Churchmen in their own homes and 
neighbourhoods, and perform all the highest duties of Churchmen ; and 
I ask what is the reason there are so few of these Staffordshire laymen 
here ? And if I look around your crowded platform, do I not find in- 
stead that the laymen for the most part are those friends whose faces 
I principally know in London society, and who habitually attend such 
meetings as these in London ? Is not this a sign of the existence of some 
great hindrance to Church progress in this county? (Cheers.) ibid are 
not the same signs to be found in every part of England? JNow I will 
mention two hindrances from which I believe to a large extent S]3ring3 
the indifferentism of the great moderate party in the Established Church 
of the men who in all ranks of life carry on the complicated machine of 
self-government in England, to Church gatherings and Church progress. 
The first I believe to be the position of the clergy individually with 
regard to their own parishes. I believe that what you really want to get 
rid of is the autocratic position of the parish clergyman. (Cheers.) The 
congregation ought to have the power of choosing a body of men from 
among themselves who should be the clergyman's advisers, and without 
whose consent changes in the mode of conducting public worship should 
be out of the question, and who should officially share with him in the 
management of the schools and in the administration of parish funds. 
(Cheers.) But a large subject conies next. I believe that the second 
great hindrance to church extension is the impression that widely pre- 
vails, and I think not without cause, that not only among the High 
Church clergy but also among the clergy generally, there is a strong 
growth of what I may broadly call a priestly feeling. (Cheers and in- 
terruption.) I know I am touching dangerous ground. (" No, no," " Go 
on.") I wish to say what I believe is really the evil in this matter. 
(Cheers.) During the last ten years every one must have observed more 
and more, even among clergymen of the Evangelical and moderate party, 
a steady, quiet, and stealthy growth — though without the least guile or 
sinister intention — of the feeling that the clergy are of a priestly order. 
(Cheers.) Now, what do we mean by the priestly feeUng — the priestly 
idea ? I use the word in the common sense in which it is used in English 
literature. It is the feeling, it is the idea, which, as it has been seen in 
ail countries and in all ages, is sure to grow up among the religioUrS 
teachers of a people when they exaggerate the inherent virtues of their 
office, and thence naturally endeavour to secure for themselves supreme 

power and control. (" No, no," and clieers.) This is wliat I understand 
By the priestly^ idea in the ordinary English sense of the ■word. (Cheers.) 
And what do you suppose it leads to ? And why is there any objection 
to it in this country of England ? We believe that that feeling is the 

Earent of groat and serious evils. (Loud cheers.) We believe that it 
?ads to the decline and gradual extinction of learning among the clergy. 
(" No, no.") I am giving you my own opinion, and I know that it rung 
counter to the opinions of many of those who spoke this morning. W© 
believe it leads to the inordinate multiplication and the burdensome 
infliction of rites and ceremonies. (Cheers.) We believe that when the 
temporal power will assist, it leads to the extermination of all who differ 
from the priestly body. (Renewed cheers, and loud expressions of dissent 
and dissatisfaction.) We believe it leads to the doling out of portions 
only from the Sacred books, in opposition to the principle of throwing 
them all open to the gaze of the whole people. (Cheers and hisses.) We 
believe that the priestly idea leads to the estabhshment of another 
master in every household, by every hearth, in the place of the husband 
and the father. (Prolonged interruption, cheers, and cries of " No, no, 
and " Shame.") We believe — and history shows us in all creeds, in all 
times, and in all countries the same thing — that this pi'iestly feeling 
ends, lastly, in raising up and establishing a human, artificial barrier 
between man and his God. (Renewed excitement) These are my 
opinions, and I have your leave to express them. (Cheers.) Let me 
remind you that ever since the art of printing resulted in the distribu- 
tion of books throughout the country — ever since knowledge ceased to 
be the exclusive possession of the clergy — there has been no faltering in 
the determination of the people not to have a priestly rule 'n England. 
(Cheers, confusion, and cries of " Time.") Can you for a moment imagine 
that a nation fond of antiquity attached to venerable institutions, and 
disliking sudden changes in the established order of things, would have 
made that great break with the past at the time of the Reformation, 
unless they had been under the influence of strong feelings against the 
domination of a priestly caste ? (Cheers.) Can you imagine that a 
nation whose hatred of foreigners has been one of the moat frequent 
reproaches, would have consented to receive William of Orange into 
England as its king, unless this determination to have no priestly rule 
had been ineradicable? ("No, no.") I say these things with very 
great regret, when I know how many clergymen there are before me. 
I have spent my life under the influence of the clergy. I love them, I 
love Oxford, I love my Church ; but I am convinced that unless it is 
made clear to the mass of the laity by the clergy — than whom a nobler, 
more admirable, or more learned body does not exist — (loud cheers) — 
that priestly rule is not aimed at, the Church will soon cease to be the 
Established Church, and ceasing to be established it will cease to be the 
National Church, do you think you will be able to keep unhallowed 
hands from the Church's endowments, which now flow through so manj 
channels for the good of the people of this country ? (Loud cheering.. 
Let the clergy, however, frankly abandon this illusive dream : let thejBa 
be content with the less ambitious, but truer and more endearing positioE 
in their parishes, of the clergyman, the minister, the pastor, the teachers, 
the friend of all, — and it is my firm conviction, drawn from some eS" 
perience of the present disposition of our town populations, both iL'\ 
London and in the manufacturing districts, that there is now scarcely 
any limit to which their influence for good over this country may not; 
be extended ; and that the Church of England will long remain the 
established representative of the national iaith in this land, and tho 
Bource of infinite blessings to the whole people. 

To be obtained at the Office of the Chiirch Association, 14, Buckingham Street, Strand, London. 
By Subscribers, for distribution, free. By others at 2d per dozen, or Is per 100. 



By the B»t. C. BnLLOCK, Rrctor of St. Nicholas' , Worcester^ 
Editor of " Our Own Fireside." 

The Teaching of the Eefoemees. 

" Feedtno on Christ, in the heart, by faith, with thanksgiving,'* 
is the Christian's daili/ privilege and daihj necessity. Unless he thus 
"eats Christ's flesh, and drinks His blood," or, equivalent words, 
" dioells in Christ, and Christ in him,'''' there is " no" spiritual " life" 
in him. — (St. John vi. 56.) 

The setting forth of this truth, so plainly revealed, and so simple 
in its very mystery, is the only safeguard against error respecting 
the Lord's Supper. 

There cannot be two ways of " eating Christ's body" and " drinking 
His blood;" and he who does it " by faith" daily, will also do it 
" by faith," when, in communion with his brethren, in the special 
Rct of sacramental remembrance at the Lord's Table, he realizes the 
real presence, promised by the Saviour, " whenever two or three ar© 
gathered together in His Name." 

This is tc'hat the Heformers tattght. 

Thus Tyndale says : — "The Papists draw and wrest the 6th of John 
to the carnal and fleshly eating of Christ's body in the mouth, when 
it only meaneth of eating hy f-iitli. For when Christ said, ' Except 
ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, ye have no 
life in you,' this cannot be understood of the Sacrament. For 
Abraham had life, and all the old holy fathers ; John Baptist, Simeon, 
aud all the Apostles, had life already by faith in Christ ; of which 
not one had eaten His flesh, and drunken His blood, with their bodily 
mouths. But truth it is, that the righteous liveth by His faith ; 
therefore, to believe and trust m Christ's blood is the eating that 
there was meant, as the text well proveth." 

Archbishop Cranmer also says : — " Christ in the 6th of John spake 
cot «f the material and Sacramental bread, nor of the Sacramental 
eating (for that was spoken two or three years before the Sacrament 
was first ordained) ; but He spake of Spiritual bread, many times 
repeating ' I am the bread of life, which came from heaven,' and of 
Spiritual eating by faith, after which sort He was at the same present 
time eaten of as many as believed on Him, although the Sacrament 
was not at that time made and instituted." 

And tlie famous Bishop Jewel says : " If no man may eat the flesh 

of Christ, but only in the Sacrament, then all Christian chilaren, and 
all others whatsoever that depart this life without receiving the 
Sacrament, must needs be damned, and die the children of God's 
auger." " This principle," he bays, " is not only false in itself, but 
also full of dangerous doctrine." He adds, " But little care these 
men (Dr. Harding and other Eoraanists) who or how many perish, 
80 their fantasies may stand upright." 

The Teaching of the Eitualists. 
The Eev. G. E. Prynue, of St. Peter's, Plymouth, in The EucJia- 
ristic Manual, pronounced by the Eev. G. Nugee, before the Eitual 
Commission, " one of the best books on the Holy Communion," says. 
" Unless men .... feed upon Christ's body and blood in the 
Holy Communion, they cannot remain united to Christ, and if not 
united to Christ they cannot come to eternal life. . . . Not to 

receive the Holy Communion is to forfeit our salvation 

Those Christians who are never present when the Holy Eucharist is 
offered up, never plead for their pardon and forgiveness in that one 
way which Christ ordained that they should plead for it." 

Note op Comment. 

It thus appears that the controversy of the day is not one of 
Ecclesiastical millinery or theatrical display, but of man's eternal 
doom. It is really whether men " are saved by grace through faith," 
according to the Scinpture, or through the Sacraments, according to 
the priest. " If through the Sacraments, then, — as according to 
Eitualistic teaching, the only way of salvation is by partaking of the 
body and blood of Christ in the Sacrament, and as this body and 
blood can only be conveyed to individual Christians by priests 
descended in a direct liue from the Apostles — the future state of 
every man depends upon his receiving or not receiving the body and 
blood of Christ in the Sacrament of His Supper at the hands of a 
priest of the true Church. 

" As the matter is so weighty, it will perhaps be better to speak 
plainly ; if a man do not partake of the body and blood of Christ in 
the Sacrament at ihe hands of a true priest he cannot go to heaven, 
but must go to hell !" 

In view of this teaching, are we not right in saying with the first 
Archbishop of the Eeformed Church of England — " All such priests 
as pretend to be Christ's successors in making a sacrifice of Him are 
His most heinous and horrible adversaries ?" 

To be obtained at the Office of the Church Association, 14, Buckingham Street, Strand, London. 
By Subscribers, for distribution, free. By others at 2(Z per dozen, or Is jier 100. 

66tli Thousand.] 

No. CXX. 


It is to hold " that no public worship is really deserving of 
its name unless it be histrionic, to learn a lesson from the stage, 
the gin-palace, the Odd Fellows and the Poresters (1);" to i. The churct 
conduct divine service so that " a stranger entering into a p.'-M. 
Church where Kitual is carefully attended to might easily, 
and of course, mistake it for a Eoman service (2) ;" to main- 2. The Chnreh 
tain as " the five prominent (though not exclusive) points of p/'lii^ ° 
the charter of an English Churchman's Ritualistic liberties, 
the ancient vestments, the two lights on the altar, the incense, 
the mixed chalice, the eastward positiou, in front of the altar, 
of the priest and his assistants in the celebration of the Holy 
Communion (3)." ,„ ^ w 

^ ' 8. Tlie Ch..'ch 

It is to speak of the XXXIX Articles as " those Protestant and the worio, 

. . . P- 49'- 

Articles tacked on to a Catholic Liturgy, those forty stripes 
save one, as some have called them, laid on the back of the 
Anglican Priesthood (4)." ^ ^ ^^^ c^„^^„ 

It is to assert " that nothing can ever make up for the "^202? ^^'"^'"^' 
loss of the perpetual Presence of God incarnate, under 
the form of bread, on the altar ; or for the practical change 
which has turned out clergy from a sacrificing priesthood into 
a preaching ministry (5) ; " to pray after the consecration, " by 5. f^he chnrch 
the words of which the bread becomes the body of Christ, and ^"^J^;^ '^^°'^'"' 
the wine the blood, ' I believe, Jesus, that Thou art truly 
present ; I worship Thee as the shepherds worshipped Thee, 
as the wise men adored Thee' (6) ; " "to bow down the head e. The Littia 
and body in deepest adoration when the priest says the awful ""^^'^' "* 
words, and to worship the Saviour then verily and indeed 
present on His altar (7);" to recognise and give directions 7. The Littu 
for " Mass for the dead," with the prayer " Grant that the p its. 
sacrifice may be a propitiation for me, and for all for whom I 
have offered it (8). " 8. AitarMaiiuu. 

It is to agree " that those who are neither with the saints 
nor with the damned suffer great anguish, and that meantime 
their souls are benefited by the prayers and offerings of the 
Church, and by alms given in their behalf; that those who 
have not died beyond the pale of salvation receive mitigation 
in their suff', and ultimate release ; and that possibly 

pp. 1 -i, lb. 

those who are lost gain a mitigation of their sufferings, which 
* Tracts for the mitigation may last through eteruity (9) ; " that by the 

Purgatory, p. disuse of the custom of " men flocking to the altar of God 
there to offer up their prayers in conjunction with the All-pre- 
vailing Sacrifice for their departed friends, the dead have been 
defrauded of their right," and " worse than all, that through a 
great part of Western Christendom the voice of prayer for their 
peace and refreshment has already ceased for three hundred 
years ; thus the perfecting of the Saints has been retarded, and 
'°bl'^''*i/o'' '^2^ ^^® great day of final reckoning postponed (10)." 

Pnrgatory p. jj^ jg ^q affirm, " that Protestantism is hopelessly undogmatie ; 
that it consists in a system of negations ; it is destructive not 

11. Tiie Church constructive, &c. (11) ; " " that there is nothing in the Council 

and the World, ' ^ ^ -^ i • , • p -i 

p. 101. of Trent which could not be explained satisfactorily to us if it 

12. The Church were explained authoritatively, (12) ; " to believe " that, rightly 
p. 241. ' understood, they are in the main truer statements than our 

own ;" " that there is nothing that can be called error in the 

13. The Chwrch Church of Some (13) ; " " that the English Church is still a 
p?23o.'' "'''part of the Catholic Church, unless she sinned sufficiently at 

14. The Church the Eeformatiou to justify Eome in cutting her off (14) ;" to 
p"s3i.'^ ^^'"^''' believe it to be " a most fatal mistake to think that the sin3 

confessed in secret to God are fully confessed ;" " to look upon 
the confessing priest not as a commissioned minister, but to 
see that it is our Lord Himself who speaks at Confession, and 
that the Confessor's words are not his own, but that he is under 
the control of one who regulates them in a way of which the 

15. The Church priest himself is generally unconscious (15)." 

and the World, ' . ° •' ... 

p- 220. It is to admire and propose for imitation the Liturgy of the 

10. Liturgy of the Church of Sarum (16); wherein are set forth the Eomish 

ruiD, dedicated vcstmeuts, (pp. 37, 44-5-6), cliasuble, amice, &c. ; the lights, 

to the Bishop the acolytes, (pp. 39, 40, Preface, p. 13), thurifers, (p. 42), and 

* "'^* taper bearers, (p. 41), the incense (pp. 42-7, 51), worship 

of the crucifix (p. 47), sign of the cross, (p. 48), adoring the 

cross and prayers to it (pp. 121-2), performing sacrifice, offering 

the host, elevating and adoring it, (pp. 50-1-2-3, 62-3-5-6-7, 

75-8, 81, and 124) ; High mass, low mass, masses for the 

dead, (pp. 41, 68, 75, 81), belief in purgatory, (p. 54), prayers 

to the Virgin, (pp. 38, 40-9, 64, 70-3, 83), festivals in her 

honour, prayers to the saints askin[; their intercession, (pp. 40, 

64, 90-3). 

To be nbtained at the Office of the Church Association, 14, Buckingham Street, Strand, London, 
By Subscribers, for distribution, free. By others at 2d per dozen, or Is per 100. 

lOStli Thousand.] 


It is to •' utterly reject and auatbennitize tlie principle of 
Protestantism as a heresy, with all its forms, sects, or denomi- 
nations (1) ;" "to hate the Eeformation and the Eetbrmers \J«'^"^*''^^iJ,,^|: 

more and more (2) ;" to mourn under " the miserable and soul- iy. p- 9- , 

\ J ' _ 2. I'loudes Re- 

sickening feeling of being cut oft' from Christendom (3) ;" to mains, VoL l 

liold th;it "our Church is Ichahod, the glory is departed (4) ;" 3 Biitish Critic. 

1111 !• 1 !■ j_i ^°'- xxix. p. 

indulging merely a famt hope, " should the pure light ot the 357. 
gospel be ever, by God's grace, restored to this benighted Times, No. 31. 

land (5)." 5 Biitisli critic, 

It is to denounce " the present Church system as an incubus ^' '^' ' 
upon the country (6) ;" to declare that " the Church is in cap- 
tivity (7) ;" that it is " in bondage," and " working in chains mai™" Vol tl, 
(8) ;" that " the English Church is incomplete in its formal 7|''Tiactsfortiie 
doctrine and discipline (9);" that "at the rebellion of 1G88 J'^r ^'°- ^^• 
she threw% as it were, out of her pale, the doctrine of Christ ^Jmes^'^T";"";)^ 
crucified (10) ;" that " the mark of being Christ's kingdom is o\t-'act=S)vthe 
obscured, and but faintly traced on the English Church (11) ;" Times, No. 71, 
and that, " w-e must recede more and more from the principles 10. Tracts for the 

' *• *• Tmies, No. 80, 

of the English Eeformation (12)." , p- je. 

° ^ . . 11. Wards few 

It is to declare that " our articles are the offspring of an more words, 

' . . P- 90- 

uncatbolic age (13) ;" and that the communion service is " a 12. British Critic, 

judgment upon the Church (14);" it is to teach that " the 13. Tracts for'tha 

Eomish ritual was a precious possession (15) ;" that the mass p. 4. ' 

book is " a sacred and most precious monument of the Apostles mains, vol 1" 

(16) ;" that " Eome has preserved in her services, that beauty 15^ Tracts for the 

of holiness, of which we had lost sight (17) ;" and that the p.™.*^^' ^°" ^^' 

discarding of the mass by our Beformers, gives rise to " a ^\^uer™o Faus. 

feeling of indignation and impatient sorrow (18)." 17^'Bri^isl/critic, 

It is to assert that " Scripture, it is plain, is not, on Anglican ^^g^' ^^^^' p- 

principles, the rule of faith (19) ;" that " the tradition of the ^\^i™Faus- 

Church Catholic is the legitimate interpreter of Scripture (20) ;" i/''^^;,|.''/j, ^^^ 

and that " we must demand the ascertainment and teaching of Times, No. 96. 

° p. 11. 
the whole body of Catholic tradition (21)." 20. Tracts forth«) 

. ^ r • ^ • t • Times, No. 71 

It is to teach that " baptism, and not faith, is the primary p- is. 

^ . .^ . ,^ox ,, 1 j^i , 1 -T 21. Palmer'sAidf 

instrument ot justincation (22) ; and that " the prevailing to Eeflectia 
notion of bringing forward the doctrine of the atonement, 22. Newman oa 
explicitly and prominently on all occasions, is evidently quite aeo! ' "^^ ° ' '*' 
opposed to the teaching of Scripture (23)." 23. Tracts for the 

It is to assert that, in the Lord's Supper " the Bread and p^Ti*^*' ^^' ^^ 

"Wine are changed by the Consecration of the Priest, and the 
operation of the Holy Ghost, and become the very Body and 
verv Blood of our Lord ^24):" "that the power of makintf 

X». Ptlmftfs Let- *' , ^ -n., -, . ^i" • . i . , r 

tertoaPiotes- the Body and Blood ot Christ is vested in the successors of 

fant Catholic, . ' ^ ^c\^\ 11 ,^ i ^ i t ^ • 1 »Ti 

/). 30. _ the Apostles (25); that the table is properly an Altar, and 
mains. voL i. that " Altars presume a propitiatory sacrifice (26)." 
aeruiitish Critic, It is to assert " the cleansing efficacy of suffering (27) ;" — 

27. "vani's'^Vew ^i^d to assert " that a person may believe that there is a pur- 
mo^ yfoixu, gj^^Qpy. . .(-i^g^i; lellcs may be venerated ; that saints may be 

invoked ; that there are seven sacraments ; that the maes is an 
oflTering for the quick and dead for the remission of sins ; 
and that he may yet with a good conscience subscribe the 39 
articles of the Church of England (28)." 

28. Tracts for tlie . i ,. i t^ i i -n (> 

Times, No. 90, it IS to speak of the English Eeiormers, as " persons not to 

29 Froude's Re- ^^ trusted on ccclesiastical and theological questions (29) ;" 

mains. Preface, ])ut of Popc Hildebraud as " that celebrated man, who reigna 

V ol. 111. p. 19. J^ _ ' O 

„„ „ .,. ^ „ in the Church without vestige of a rival (30) ;" of Thomas a 

30. British Ma- ° , v / j 

gazine, VoL ix. Beckct, as " One of the blessed saints and martyrs of the Most 

High (31);" and of " Hildebrand, Becket, and Innocent," as 

Juiyi84i,)).42! " the lights of the Church in the middle ages (32) ;" to hold 

82. Britisli Critic, ,, , ,, i. . . ^ • n ^^ • i i i , • i 

July 1841, p. 15. that " divme providence merciiully interposed, by cutting short 
the life of King Edward "VI. ;" and that "the accession and 
reign of Queen Mary were great and positive advantages to 
the Church of England (33)." 

fold Maivoisin, Eiually, it is to maintain, that, " Home was our mother, 

DD 58 59 

' ■ through whom we were born to Christ (34) ;" that " theEefor- 

Times, No. 77, mation was a limb badly set, it must be broken again, in order 

to be righted (35) ;" that in " lacking visible union with the 

'^mains, VoL i. ChuTch of Eomc, we forcgo a great privilege (36) ;" thatEome, 

86^ r.ritish Clitic, " ^^^s been, even in her worst times, on most points, a firm and 

July iS4i, p. 3. consistent witness in act and word for orthodox doctrine (37) ;" 

87. Ward's few . \ / > 

more Words, and " that the Prayer Book has no claim on a layman's defer- 
ence, as the teaching of the Church, which the Breviary and 
Missal have not in afar greater degree (38) ;" hence Eitualism 
mains. Vol t " as on the One hand it begins with the utter repudiation of 
^ * Protestantism, so on the other it will stop at nothing short of 

the restoration of unity throughout Catholic Christendom (39)." 
The fruits of such work is already seen in the cases of 
those who have already joined the Eomish Church- 

To be obtained at the Office of the Cliiirch Association, 14, Buckingham Street, Strand, London. 
By Subscribers, for distribution, free. By others at 2d per dozen, or \s per 100. 

fceth. Thousand.] 



" The address of Dr. Pusey to the members of the English 
Chnrch Union at their last monthly* meeting is one of considerable 
significance, and franght with most important lessons for the 
present time. It is, simply, a formal declaration of War. War 
against unbelief, against coldness, against timidity, against all 
which goes to make up that form of religionism which dignitaries 
call safe and the Tim^s calls English. War then it shall be. But, 
that point once settled, the question is. What shall be the tactics by 
tvhich the campaign shall be conducted ? Twenty, or even ten years 
ago the inquiry would have been very different. Then, it would 
have been. Who will be the leader, who will go out against tho 
Goliath of ProtestantisiTi and be champion for cowering Israel ? 
"How, the former demoralization, engendered by centuries of apathy 
and ignorance is vanishing, and there is no lack of warriors, but 
discipline and strategy have been but imperfectly mastered, and there is 
a consequent waste of effort in many cases, if not an actual check. 

" The advice of Dr. Pusey is this : Let no further advances be 
made for the present, but all attention be concentrated in fortifying 
the position already attained, and in completing the military 
education of the Church's army. This is the method by which 
Russia has pushed her way so steadily and permanently into the 
far East. A fort is erected in the enemy's country, with clear lines 
of communication back to the basis of supply. A village of soldier- 
colonists gathers round the fort, and civilians follow where a 
market springs up- When the post has been Russianized it 
becomes, in its turii, the base line of operation, and another fort is 
trirown out some score of miles in advance, and the process is 
repeated, until, as we have seen, Khokan, Bokhara, and the 
neighbouring territories are in a fair way to be as Slavonic as 
Kazen and Perm. But two rules are inexorably maintained. No 
fort is erected at a dangerous distance from the base line, and no 
non-combatants are allowed to be the pioneers of colonization. 
Exactly identical with this should be our policy. 

" Churches like St. Alban's, Uolborn, and St. Lawrence's, Norwich^ 
books like the Attar Manual, the Priest's Prayer Book, and the 
Church and the World, fairly represent the most advanced post yet 
reached by the Catholic Revival in England. Thet are not thr 


Ritualists, is the reunion of Christendom and the absorption 
OF Dissent within the Church. Nothing short of that will be 
enough, but the magnitude of such an operation is so gigantic that 
nothing less than the application of enormous power can effect it. 
The guns of one fort, however gi-eat in calibre and however skilfully 
worked, will not supply the place of a whole siege-train, the hardy 
veterans of a forlorn hope are not enough to charge the whole army 
of Protestantism in nosition. To do so is magnificent, but it is not 
* :\rarcli2Ist, 1867. 

war. And as we do not want merely badges of valour, but the full 
conquest of a vast territory, it is clear we must employ all the skill 
which genius or experience can give, till we have made a nation of 
soldiers of those timid bondsmen who, under long Philistine 
domination, have had neither sword nor shield for their defence, 
and have had to seek the grudging leave of their tyrants for even so 
much use of iron as would enable them to prepare the soil for a 
scanty and precarious harvest. 

" This, then, is the thing to do. Let the advanced posts remain as 
they are. Let each of those which is a little behind, and only a 
little, gTadually take up the same position, and let this process be 
carried on (only without haste or wavering) down to the last in the 
chain. A story is told of a dislionest taker who kept himself and his 
family in meat at a nominal cost by purchasing the very smallest 
leg of mutton to be had, and exchanging this for the next in size 
Bent him by his customers, and repeating the process until he had 
succeeded in obtaining nearly twenty pounds of meat for his original 
six or seven, without any one customer being able to detect the 
fraud in his own case. The cheating haker may point a parable as the 
Unjust Steward has done. Where there is only the ordinary parish 
routine, but where the preaching is honest and sound, let a gradual 
change he brought in. A. choral service, so far as Psalms and Canticles 
are concerned, on some week-day evening, will train people to like 
a more ornate worship, and that which began as an occasional 
luxury, will soon be felt a regular want. Where there is monthly 
communion, let it be fortnightly ; where it is fortnightly, let it be 
weekly ; where it is weekly, let a Thursday office be added. 
Where all this is already existing, candlesticks with unlighted 
candles may be introduced. Where these are already found, they 
might be lighted at Evensong. Where so much is attained, the 
step to lighting them for the Eucharistic Office is not a long one. 
Where the black gown is in use in the pulpit on Sundays, let it 
disappear in the week. The surplice will soon be preferred, and 
will oust its rival. It is easy for each reader to see how some 
advance, all in the same direction, can be made, and that without 
any offence taken. Only two things should be most carefully 
observed as a rule. First of all, nothing should be introduced with- 
out a plain and frank statement to the people. Secondly, the 
innovations ought to be confined at first, to extra services, put on for 
this very purpose." — Leading article from, the Church Times, the 
acknowledged organ of the Bitualists. — March 30, 1867. 

We now see what the Romanizers are avowedly aiming at — 
Submission to Rome, and what their plan of operation. If, after 
this open declaration of a dishonest, Jesuitical, and unprincipled 
design to Romanize our Church, Englishmen allow their blood • 
bought liberties to be taken from them, either from apathy or empty 
sonfidence, they will deserve to lose them. 

To be obtained at the Office of the Church Association, 14, Buckingham Street, Strand, London. 
By Subscribers, for distribution, free. By others at 2d per dozen, or Is per 100. 

136tli Thousand.] 


§nigei[fj fail M ^^'^^^^ 

Extract from Homily XIX, Third Part. 

Now to entreat of that question, whether we ouglit to pray for 
t^iem that are departed out of this world, or no. Wlierein, if we 
will cleave only unto the word of God, then must we needs grant, 
that we liaTo no commandment so to do. Por the Scripture dotb, 
acknowledge but two places after this life : the one proper to the 
elect and blessed of God, the other to the reprobate and damned 
Bouls ; as may be well gathered by the parable of Lazarus and the 
rich man (Luke xvi. 19 — 26) ; which place St. Augustine expounding 
saith in this wise, " That which Abraham speaketh unto the rich 
man in Luke's gospel, namely, that the just cannot go into those 
places where the wicked are tormented ; what other things doth it 
signify, but only this, that the just, by reason of God's judgment, 
which may not bs revoked, can shew no deed of mercy in helping 
them which after this life are cast into prison, until they pay the 
uttermost farthing?" These words, as they confound the opinion of 
helping the dead by prayer, so they do clean confute and take away 
the vain error of purgatory, which is grounded upon thi^ saying of 
the gospel. Thou sJialt not depart hence, until thou hast paid the 
•uttermost farthing [Matt. v. 26]. Now doth St. Augustine say, that 
those men which are cast into prison after this life, on that condition 
may in no wise be holpen, though we would help them never so much, 
And why ? Because the sentence is unchangeable, and cannot be 
revoked again. Therefore let us not deceive ourselves, thinking that 
we may either help other, or other may help by their good and 
charitable prayers in time to come. !For, as the Preacher saith, 
When the tree falleth, ivhether it be toioard the south or toivard the 
north, in what i^lace soever the tree falleth, there it lieth (Eccles. xi. 
3) ; meaning thereby, that every mortal man dieth either in the state of 
salvation or damnation, according as the words of the evangelist 
John do also plainly import, saying. He that helieveth on the Son of 
God hath eternal life ; but he that believeth not on the Son shall never 
see life, but the torath of God abideth upon him (Johniii. 36). Where 
is then the third place, which they call purgatory? Or where shall 
our prayers help and profit the dead? St. Augustine doth only 
acknowledge " two places" after this life, heaven and hell. As for 
the third place, he doth plainly deny that there is any such to be 
found in all Scripture. Chrysostom likewise is of this mind, that 
" unless we wash away our sins in this present world, we shall find 
no comfort afterward." And St. Cyprian saith, that, after death, 
" repentance and sorrow of pain shall be without fruit ; weeping 
also shall be in vain, and prayer be to no purpose." Therefore he 
counselleth all men to make provision for themselves while they may, 
because, "when they are once departed out of this life, there is no 
place for repentance, nor yet for satisfaction." 


Let tliese and such otlier places be sufficient to take away the gross 
error of purgatory out of our heads ; neither let us dream any more, 
that the souls of the dead are anything at all holpen by our prayers ; 
but as the Scripture teacheth us, let us think that the soul of man 
passino; out of the body, goeth straightways either to heaven, or else 
to hell, whereof the one needeth no prayer, and the other is without 
redemption. The only purgatory, wherein we must trust to be saved 
is the death and blood of Christ ; which we apprehend with a true 
and stedfast faith it purgeth and cleanseth us from all our sins, even 
as well as if he were now hanging upon the cross. The blood oj 
Christ, saith St. John, liath cleansed us from all sin (1 John i. 7). 
The blood of Christ, saith St. Paul, hath purged our consciences from 
dead ivories, to serve the living God (Heb. is. 14). Also in auother 
place he saith, We be sanctified and made holy by the offering up of 
the body of Jesus Christ, done once for all. Tea, he addeth more, 
sayini;, With the one oblation of his blessed body and precious blood, 
he hath made perfect for ever and ever all them that are sanctified 
(Heb. X. 10. 14). This then is that purgatory, wherein all Christian 
men put their whole trust and confidence, nothing doubting, if they 
truly repent them of their sins and die in perfect faith, that then 
they shall forthwith pass from death to life. If this kind of purga- 
tion will not serve them, let them never hope to be released by 
other men's prayers, though they should continue therein until the 
world's end. He that cannot be saved by faith in Christ's blood, 
how shall he look to be delivered by man's intercessions? Hath 
God more respect to on earth, than he has to Christ in heaven? 
If any onansin, saith St. John, we have an Advocate with the Father 
even Jesus Christ the righteous, and he is the propitiation for our sins 
(1 John ii. 1,2). But we must take heed that we call upon this 
Advocate while we have space given us in this life, lest when we are 
once dead, there be no hope of salvation left unto us. For as every 
man sleepeth with his own cause, so every man shall rise again with 
his own cause. And look iu what state he dieth, in the same state 
he shall be also judged, whether it be to salvation or damnation. 
Let us not therefore dream either of purgatory, or of prayer for 
the souls of them that be dead : but let us urgently and diligently 
pray for them which are expressly commanded in Holy Scripture, 
namely, for kings and rulers, for ministers of God's holy word and 
sacraments, for the saints of this world, otherwise called the faithful: 
to be short, for all men living, be they never so great enemies to God 
and his people, as Jews, Turks, pagans, heretics, infidels, &c. Then 
shall we truly fulfil the commandment of God in that behalf, and 
plainly declare ourselves to be the true children of our heavenly 
Father, ivho siffereth the sun to shine upon the good and the had, and 
the rain to fall upon the just and the unjust [Slatt. v. 45]. For which, 
and all other benefits most abundantly btestowed upon mankind 
from the beginning, let us give Him hearty thanks, as we are most 
bound, and praise his name for ever and ever. Am,en. 

To be obtained at the Office of the Church Association, 14, Buckingham Street, Strand, London. 
By Subscribers, for distribution, free. By others at Id per dozen, or Is per 100. 

2crd Thousand. 



Dr. Magee, the present Bishop of Peterborough, on 
Confession to a Priest. 

" I WILL take it for granted that the Confessors are men of super- 
human sanctity, and that they will go into the Confessional, and 
afterwards leave it, as pure as angels ; still the result on the penitent 
must necessarily he deadly. He must lay bare his secret soul before 
the priest, who must ask him questions according to his suspicions 
of any concealed sin. He professes to put the questions prudently 
and cautiously, certainly, but what if he mistakes, and the thing has 
never entered the mind of the penitent, is it not clear that the priest 
has taught him a new sin, and impressed on his mind stains of vice 
ivhich he never may efface ? . . 1 maintain, that taking God's place 
without God's attributes, it is impossible, however jirudent the priest 
may be, to avoid instilling vice by the Confessional. God has not 
given to him His attribute of searching hearts ; how then can he see 
where in the heart of his penitent purity and impurity, knowledge 
and ignorance meet so as to be quite certain that his questions teach 
no new sin. He must question according to his suspicions : but from 
whence does he obtain his suspicions ? From his knowledge of the 
most abandoned of the inhabitants of his parish. His questions to 
young children are founded upon the impurity that he might have 
heard of from such persons : and more than that, he has to consult 
the volumes of the Eomish casuists . . in which coufessor after con- 
fessor has recorded his experience, until they form together a museum 
of spiritual iniquity at which fends may shudder and blush ; waere 
murderers may learn cuelty ; tvhere hoary-headed convicts may be 
taught fraud; and satyrs impurity. . 

" Now look at the consequences of this system • There comes to 
the knees of that confessor a female child of tender age. She repeats 
to him such things as she knows to be sin. He questions her. llun- 
ning over in his miud all this infernal catechism of iniquity, he must 
prudently, cautiously, and carefully select a question, and put it. 
This poor usurper of God's privileges and powers may well tremble 
as he asks that question, lest he should insinuate vice into that young 
ievrt and consciencs. For we read in a boolt written by the author 

bo * 

of conscience, that there was One who took little children in his arms 
and blessed thera, who denounced woe against him by whom one of 
those little ones should perish. It would be better for tha^ man that 
a mill-stone were hanged about his neck, and he thrown into the 
depths of the sea. 

** I denounce the system as an outrage on decency and common 
sense, as well as on God's word, which allows an innocent child to 
have her feelings lacerated, her conscience defiled by coarse handsf 
that have been dabbling in all conceivable filth. 

" This is not a matter in whicli the confessor merely is involved. 
It is a matter of indifference whether those abominable questions be 
put with the reluctant horror of a saint, or with the prurient 
curiosity of a sinner. The effects upon the miserable victim are the 
same. .... 

"But this is not all. The confessor leaves the confessional some- 
thing more than a confessor — he leaves it also a director. Now 
that is a phrase that is merely Eomish as yet: but it means that the 
person to whom you confess all your sins becomes your master. Not 
a man in this hall can come to my room and confess all his sins to me, 
and the next morning look me in the face an independent man. 
Knowing every one of his weaknesses, propensities, passions, or 
crimes, I can move that man, having the strings of his nature in my 
hands, as a child moves a puppet. The confessor becomes imme- 
diately master of the conscience of the penitent. He can no more 
have his own conscience with a director, than he can be his own 
lawyer, or his own doctor. That man's conscience will be either 
callously torpid, leaving everything to the confessor, or morbidly 
sensitive. It will be like a watch having its regulator so constantly 
tampered with, that it can never go well out of the watchmaker's 
hands. He will no more have the manly, upright, sensitive, power- 
ful, ruling conscience, ' purged from dead works to serve the living 
God,' which distinguishes the Christian man in a free Christian 
country. The priest will not only be your diiector under such 
circumstances but the director of your wives and of your daughters 
and vour servants. Tour households will be absolutely in hi& 
possession, and he who attempts to resist the director will soon find 
himself surrounded by a network of domestic influences, the potency 
of which you all know. There will be an estrangement of th» 
affection of your wives, disobedience on the part of your children, 
insults from those who are bound to honour and serve you, until you 
again submit to the man who sets himself up as a spiritual tyrant." 

Extract from a speech on " Auricular Confession in the Church of 
"England. By the Eev. W. C. Magee ; now Lord Bishop of Peter- 
borough. Seeley, London, 1852." 

To be nbteinerl at the Office of the Church Association, 14, Buckingham Street, Strand, Londo» 
By Subscribers, for distribution, free. By others at 2ci per dozen, or Is uer 100. 

132nd Thousand.] 


through the system of the Coiifessioual, great evil has been wi'ought in the 
Church of Rome, and that our Reformers acted wisely in allowing it no place in 
our Reformed Church, and we take this opportunity of expressing our entire 
disapproval of any such innovation, and our firm determination to do all in our 
power to discourage it." — Extract from Reply dated June 16, 1873, to the Memorial 
signed hij iipwards of 60,000 lay members of the Church of England. 

ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY (Dr. Tait.)— " It was early in my Epis- 
copate that a case was brought before me where a curate had committed himself 
in my judgment in this matter of confession, and I was obliged to cancel his 
licence and remove him from the position which he occupied because of an 

indiscreet use of this system of which we are speaking I agree 

with what the Bishop of Lichfield has said, that if any young man in a 
curacy, whether appointed by myself, or not, were to fall into similar objectionable 
practices in the matter of confession, I should think it my duty to revoke his 
licence as I did in the case I have referred to. . . . Where we find that eithei 
a young man, or an old man, has transgressed the limits of propriety, and has in- 
troduced that which is alien to the Church of England, we are bound to exercise 
whatever authority we possess, in order to curb the evil which is thus likely to 
spring up. It lias been said truly that this is an evil amongst young women who 
have a sort of craving for some jjerson who shall be their guide in these matters. 
The Bishop of Oxford has stated that in the case of young men he has known 
good done in this matter, but I question whether a great deal of harm has not 
also been done among young men. I should very much like to know whether a 
sort of spurious religionism is not substituted in the place of a manlj- true Chris- 
tianity in many cases even amongst young men ; and I can conceive it quite possible 
that even undergraduates in a University may be induced to frequent confession 
without any real amendment in their lives, and thereby merely to substitute a sort 
of outside repentance for that real and deep repentance vi'liich would lead them in 
a manful way, as before their Lord and Master, to change their lives. And 
besides the cases of young men and young women, what appears to me to be almost 
worse than all, is the introduction of any such system of auricular confession 
amongst children. Now I am quite aware that there are schools in which this 
system is introduced, and anything more dangerous I cannot conceive than that 
these children are to be set up to think of offences to confess to their schoolmaster, 
and in many cases, I believe, to invent ofi'ences for the sake of having sometliing 
to say. This is altogether unworthy of the ofiiee of a minister of Christ's Gospel." — 
Extract from Guardian, report of debate in Convocation, on May 9th, 1873. 

BISHOP OF WINCHESTER (Dr. Wilberforce).— " Unfortunately, I have 
found some very earnest young men in my own diocese, who have taught what I 
consider a great error — mmiely, that no man can lead the highest Christian lifc^ unless 
he is in the habitual practice of confession. This I hold to be a most mischievous 
doctrine, one entirely alien to the whole spLrit of the Church of England, and clearly 
to be justified only by treating confession as apart of a Sacrament of Penance, and 
generally necessary to salvation, whilst I, for one, and I believe every one of my 
right reverend brethren, utterly deprecate such teaching." — Ibid. 

BISHOP OF LONDON (Dr. Jackson).— " This term confession, as habituallj 
used, is used in two different senses. It is confession when a burdened soul goes to a 
minister of the Gospel or to a layman, or when we tell our sins one to another, as St. 
James says. It is confession, then, when a burdened soul tells its sorrows to its 
fellow-Christians, or to its minister whom God placed over it, or to some other 
discreet minister of the Word of God ,• but confession, as it is spoken of in iLn 


doentnent which we have before us, and which we meet with constantly m the 
public prints, is a system of going to a priest from time to time, or at definite 
intervals, always before, or frequently before, the reception of Holy Communion, as 
a means not of quieting the conscience under special circumstances, but as the 
ordinary means of obtaining strength to lead a godly life. That that kind of 
confession springs from a real want I should be loth to admit. It may be the want 

of a diseased spiritual life I believe myself that that want arises from a 

morbid state, which requires not to be encouraged, but to be sternly, though kindly, 
repressed, and, by God's help, cured." — Ibid. 

seem, I venture to think, perfectly clear, that the Church of England regards 
confession as exceptional ; that there are certain cases — namely, those in which 
minds are seriously disturbed before receiving Holy Communion, or when a 
man stretched on what he thinks may be his death-bed, in which, as being excep- 
tional circumstances, the Church of England distinctly sanctions Confession. I 
would gladly avoid the use of hard words ; but rather say on the one hand that 
the Church of England does clearly recognize confession under those exceptional 
circumstances, but on the other hand, speaking singly for myself, I would record 
the opinion that she recognizes it in no other way." — Ibid. 

BISHOP OF ELY (Dr. Browne). — " I do not believe that either in the primitive 
or the medioeval Church, in the present Roman Church, or in the Eastern Church, or 
in any body of Christians in the world, a person would be at liberty to set himself up 
as a general confessor without any authority but his own. It seems to me, therefore, if 
that be a correct interpretation of our rubi-ic and services, that we are really in a con- 
dition of greater disorder than any other Church or body of Christians in the world. 

My own impression is however, that that is not the law of the Church 

I would say, what it is very painful for me to say, that I know of many instances 
of persons extremely ill qualified to act as confessors, being chosen by certain 
persons, or having propounded themselves as confessors. That fact I am cog 
nisant of, and I imagine that your Lordships are all cognisant of it also in yout 
own spheres of knowledge. 1 am sorry to say that I have been cognisant personally 
of two or three most grievous results that I can only allude to in a general form 
through young women having chosen young men, by their own fi'ee choice, as their 
confessors, and believing that to be the case — indeed, there is no secret about it, 
and I may say that I know it to be the case — I am sorry to say that I believe it is 
the duty of ns, as the fathers and guardians of the Church, to do anything which 
lies in ns, not to hinder the proper unburdening of burdened consciences, but to 
prevent the spread of what is not only threatened but actually in existence in the 
Church." — Ibid. 

BISHOP OF LICHFIELD (Dr. Selwtn).— " At the time of ordination, when we 
admit young men into Christ's Church, it is om- duty to state to them the commission 
we have given them. I have repeatedly said that I do not believe the Church gives 
any commission to young men to assist in any way in habitual confession. A young 
man little knows his own heart, and he little knows his own weakness, if he rushes 
into such a task. ' Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.' If I thought I was 
entrusting to every one of these young men whom I ordained the function of ad- 
ministering the lase of habitual confession, I would rather resign my office of Bishop 

than do it, considering how solemn and important the function is If I 

found a young man transgressing the limits laid down with regard to confession 
in the Prayer-book, I should feel quite justified in revoking his licence, he having 
accepted his commission at my hands." — Ibid. 

BISHOP OF BATH AND WELLS (Lord ArthdrHervet).— "It is notorious 
that there are those in the Church at the present day who have deliberately and 
avowedly undertaken the task of revolutionizing the Church of England as to her 
doctrine and her ritual, and of effecting her reunion with the Church of Rome. 
There is scarcely a single doctrine of that corrupt communion M'hich it has not 
been attempted of late to bring back among us. The invocation and worship of 
the Virgin Maiy, and prayers for her intercession ; auricular confession and 
priestly absolution ; penance, purgatory, and so on, not one of which was taught 
or practised in tlic aiitc-Nicciic Church. And, togctlier with these, have been 
introduced a whole lio.stof praciices of a minor kind, all savouring of Romanism, 


and intended to familiarize the Anglican worshipper with Roman ways. Another 
method largely used for familiarizing the English Churchman's mind with Koman 
Catholic doctrine, is the introduction and recommendation on a large scale of Roman 
Cathoilc books of devotion, and especially books connected with Confession, and 
with the (so-called) sacrifice of the altar. The mind is thus familiarized with 
the teaching of Liguori and Ignatius Loyola, and with breviaries and missals, and 
alienated from the language of the Anglican i'rayer Book and the doctrines of the 
Anglican Church. 

" All this, together with the tone used by certain writers, and the endeavour to 
hoot down those who resist the attempt to Romanize the Church of Eni^laud, as if 
they were not true Churchmen, but ignorant, uncatholic dissenters, convinces me 
that there is a deliberate conspiracy on foot somewhere to bring back the Church 
of England to communion with, and obedience to the Pope of Rome." — Extract 
from Charge, 1873. 

BISHOP OF MANCHESTER (Dr. Eraser).— "To what extent attempts 
are made to introduce amongst us the Romish doctrine and practice of the con- 
fessional I have no means of knowing ; but I do not believe that these attempts, 
so contrary to the temper of the English mind, are likely to succeed any better 
than the former. Sorry as I shonld be to restrain the permission now given in the 
Prayer Book to any one unable to quiet his own conscience, to ' come to some 
discreet and learned minister of God's Word, and open his grief,' a nermissioa 
which, in one form or other, is given and used in almost all religious bodies, 
and by men of the most divergent types of thought, I have always regarded, and 
still regard, the practice of compulsory confession as most demoralizing to 
the individual conscience, (as all histoiy proves) fruitful of the most mis- 
chievous consequences to both priest and penitent, and to society at large ; and 
there is nothing that I should more profoundly deplore, as a taint likely to vitiate 
the whole social atmosphere in which we live, than the naturalization of any such 

system in the Church of England And though I have no right to speak in 

any other name than my own, I may at least say that such ' erroneous,' and, as I 
deem them mischievous ' i)ractices,' will receive neither sympathy nor encourage- 
ment from me." — Letter in acknowledgmfmt of Resolution passed at a Public Meeting 
held at Birniingham in July, 1873. 

BISHOP OF WORCESTER (Dr. Philpott).— " I concur with the meeting in 
viewing with sorrow and disapprobation the petition lately presented to the Upper 
House of Convocation by 483 clergymen of the Church of England. 

"Inasmuch as the petitioners pray that provision may be made for such changes 
in the order for the administration of Holy Communion as may bring the service 
into closer accordance with the ancient Liturgy of the Church of England, and 
particularly with the service contained in the first Prayer Book of King Edward "VI., 
for the reservation of the blessed Eucharist, for the use of unction with consecrated 
oil in holy baptism and confirmation, as well as in the visitation of the sick ; for the 
education, selection, and licensing of duly qualified confessors, and for other things 
of a like tendency which our Church and realm have deliberately laid aside. I 
cannot but agree also with the meeting in regarding the petition as an attempt to 
undo the gi-eat work of the Reformation, and bring the Church of England into 
reunion with the CJhurch of Rome." — Eeply to Resolution ^mssed at a Public Meeting 
held at Birmingham in July, 1873. 

BISHOP OF LINCOLN (Dr. Wordsworth).—" The Church of England, 
gi'ounding her doctrine on Holy Scripture, teaches that it appertains to Almighty- 
God, and to Him alone, to forgive sins. (Commination Service.) 

" The Church of England teaches that it is repugnant to Holy Scripture, and to 
the doctrine and practice of the ancient Catholic Church, to affirm that it is neces- 
sary for men to confess their sins privately to a priest, in order to obtain pardon 
from God. 

" The office of a Penitentiary, for the reception of private confessions, existed in 
ancient Churches ; but the confessions which he received were voluntary, and were 
not exacted of any one ; and the abolition of that ofiice in the Eastern Church in 
the fourth century is a proof that private confession was not then deemed to be 
obligatory, and that in some cases it had been found to be hurtful. (See Bingham, 
xviii. 3, and his two Sermons and Letter on Absolution ; Works, viii. 409-457.) 

" The divines of the Church of England have proved that the doctrine of the 

Church of Ronae, that private, or auricular, confession to a priest is necessarj', wau 
not generally received in the twelfth century (see Gratiau, dist. i. de Poenitetitia, c. 
79), and was first imposed as an article of faith in the year 1215, at the Fourth 
Council of Lateran (Canon 21 ; see Labbe, Council, torn. xi. p. 172.) 

" The Church of Enf;laud rejects the terms ' Sacramental Penance' and ' Sacra- 
mental Confession.' She affirms, in her Twenty-fifth Article, that 'Penance is 
not to be accounted a Sacrament of the Gospel.' And her divines have shown that 
the doctrine of the so-called Sacrament of Penance, as taught by the Church of 
Rome, is beset with contradictions, inasmuch as there is no consistency in her 
teaching as to what constitutes the form of the said Sacrament and in what its 
matter consists (Hooker, VI, iv. 3, cp. Chemnit. Examen Concil. Trid. de Pcenit. 
c. iii.), and inasmuch as that Church makes satisfaction to be a part of the Sacra- 
ment of Penance (Concil. Trident. Sess. xiv. 3), and yet separates satisfaction from 
it, by pronouncing Absolution first, and by imposing works of satisfaction to be 
done afterwards ; which is repugnant to the teaching of Scripture, and to the doc- 
trine and practice of the primitive Church." — Extract Jrom the Bishop's Speech at 
a Meeting of Archdeacons and FMval Deans of the Diocese of Lincoln. 


The following report of the Committee of the Upper House of Convocation of 
the Province of Canterbury, being a Committee of the whole House, appointed on 
the 9th of May last, to consider and report on the teaching of the Church of England 
on the subject of Confession was yesterday laid on the table by his Grace the Arch- 
bishop : — 

" In the matter of Confession, the Church of England holds fast those prin- 
ciples which are set forth in Holy Scripture, which were professed by the Primi- 
tive Church, and which were ro-affirmcd at tlie English Reformation. The Church 
of England, in the 25th Article, affirms that penance is not to be counted for a 
Sacrament of the Gospel ; and, as judged by her formularies, knows no such words 
as ' sacramental confession.' Grounding her doctrines on Holy Scripture, she 
distinctly declares the full and entire forgiveness of sins, through the blood of Jesus 
Christ, to those who bewail their own sinfulnes-s, confess themselves to Almighty 
God, with full purpose of amendment of life, and turn with true faith unto Mim. 
It is the desire of the Church that by this way and means all her children should 
find peace. In this spirit the forms of Confession and Absolution are set forth in 
her public services. Yet, for the relief of the troubled consciences, she has made 
special provision in two exceptional cases. 

" ( 1.) In the case of those who cannot quiet their own consciences previous to 
receiving the Holy Communion, but require further comfort or counsel, the minister 
is directed to say, ' Let him come to me, or to some otlier discreet and learned 
minister of God's word, and open his grief, that by the ministry of God's Holy 
Word he may receive the benefit of absolution, together with ghostly counsel and 
advice.' Nevertheless, it is to be noted that for such a case no form of absolution 
has been prescribed in the Book of Common Prayer ; and further, the Rubric in 
the first Prayer Book of 1549, which sanctions a particular form of Absolution, has 
been witlulrawn from all subsequent editions of the said Book. 

" (2.) In the order of the Visitation of the Sick, it is directed that the sick man 
may be moved to make a special confession of his sins if he feel his conscience 
troubled with any weighty matter, but in such case absolution is to be given 
when the sick man sliall humbly and heartily desire it. The special provision, 
however, does not authorize the ministers of the Church to require from any 
who may rcjjair to them lo open their grief in a particular or detailed examination 
of all their sins, or to require ]3rivate confession as a condition previous to receiving 
the Holy Communion, or to enjoin or even encour.ige any practice of habitual con- 
fession to a priest, or to teach that such practice of habitual confession, or the being 
subject to what has been termed the direction of a jiriest, is a condition of attaining 
to the highest spiritual life." — '^', July 24th, 1873. 

To be obtained at the Office of the Church Association, 14, Buckinghairi Street, Strand, London. 
By Subscribers, for distribution, free. By others at the price of 3rf per dozen, or Is (ici per 100. 
27th Thousaad.J 


The Council of the Church Association having had under their 
consideration numerous letters from their friends requesting infor- 
mation as to the effect of the Judgment in the Purchaa case on the 
practice of wearing the black gown in preaching, they desire to call 
attention to the fact, that the question of the Vestment to be worn 
ill Preaching was not included in the Articles against Mr. Purchas, 
and consequently it was neither argued nor determined in that case. 

Under these circumstances, it is the decided opinion of the 
Council of the Church Association that all Clergymen are fully 
justilied in continuing the established usage, unless it shall hereafter 
be decided to be illegal by tlie Court of Final Appeal. 

Church Association Monthly Intelligencer, April 1, 1871, p. 43. 

The same remark ap])]ies to the Eidsdale Judgment. 

The Bishop of Worcester has addressed the following letter to one 
of the clergy of the diocese : — 

" Hartlebury, Kidderminster, March 13, 1871. 

" My dear , — It is clear to me that the recent judgment of 

the Court of Privy Council has not in any way aftected the ques- 
tion of the use of the academical gown in preaching. 

" The liubric, prefixed to our Book of Common Prayer, directs 
that such ornaments of the Church and of the ministers thereof, at 
all times of their ministration, shall be retained and be in use as 
were in this Church of England by the authority of Parliament in 
the second year of the reign of King Edward the Sixth. 

" The Court of Privy Council decided in 1857 (' Liddcll v. Wester- 
ton') that the authority of Parliament here mentioned is that which 
established the first Prayer Book of King Edward the Sixth, and 
that the ornaments to be used now are those which were prescribed 
by that book. 

"In their recent judgment (' Hebbert v. Purchas') the Court have 
expressed their opinion that the Act of Uniformity which esta- 
blished the Kubric is to be construed with the canons of 1(308, on 
the subject of the dress of ministers ; and they have decided accoi'd- 
ingly that Mr. Purchas offended against the laws ecclesiastical in 
wearing the chasuble, alb, and tunic (prescribed by the Prayer Book 
of 1510 for the service of the Holy Communion), the canons having 
directed that the minister should wear a surplice. 

" JS'ow the canon. No. 58, which regulates the dress of ministers 
in parish churches, directs that ' every minister saying the public 
prayers, or ministering the sacraments or other rites of the Church, 
shall wear a decent and comely surplice with sleeves, to be provided 
at the charge of the parish.' 

"In the llubrics of the Prayer Book of 1549, particular vestures 
are appointed for the ministration of the Holy Communion, viz. 'a 
white alb, plain, with a vestment or cope' for the principal minister, 
and ' albes with tunics' for the priests or deacons who help him in 
the service. It is also directed that in the saying or singing of 
matins and evensong, baptizing and burying, the minister in parish 
churches and chapels annexed to the same shall use a surplice. 


The significant direction is added, * It is also seemly that graduates, 
when they do preach, should use such hoods as pertaineth to their 
several degrees.' 

" In neither of the two authorities to which we are referred for 
the dress of ministers is any direction to be found for the dress of 
the preacher, other than he should wear the hood of his degree, if a 

" In the absence of any positive directions we seem obliged to 
gather such information on the subject as we can from historical 
notices. I apprehend that ' contemporaneous and continuous usage' 
(to which the Court of Privy Council justly attributes great eflBcacy 
in law) may be alleged as simply sufficient, at least to justify the 
use of the academical gown in preaching. 

" I may mention one such notice, by way of example, which is to 
be found in Strype's Annals of the Reformation, c. 29. He men- 
tions a petition presented to Convocation, in 1562, by thirty -two 
members of the Lower House (the Prolocutor, Dr. Nowel, Dean of 
St. Paul's, four other cathedral deans, the Provost of Eton, twelve 
archdeacons, and fourteen proctors for the clergy), in which they 
prayed, among other things, that the use of copes and surplices 
may be taken away, so that all ministers, in their ministry, use 
a grave, comely, and side garment, as commonly as they do in 

" A careful review of the information which I have been able to 
gather upon the subject leads me to think that, from the time of 
th'S Reformation downwards, our Church has deliberately left the 
question of the dress of the preacher open, with a wise regard to 
unavoidable differences of opinion, and to the feeling which would 
be excited, without sufficient cause, by any precise and definite 
legislation on the subject. 

" I do not think it right to recommend any uniformity of practice 
in this respect for the diocese of Worcester. 

" Tours very faithfully, 


Extract from the Fourth Report of the Proceedings 
of the Royal Commission on Ritual.— -P«^e 66. 

Thirteenth Meeting, Monday, July 29, 18G7. 
The Archbishop of Canterrubt in the Chair. 

The following resolution was proposed by the Earl of Harrowbt, 
and carried unanimously: — 

" That, therefore, it is expedient that the Surplice, together with 
"a Stole or Scarf; and in the case of graduates, an Academic Hood, 
"be the vestment which Priests and iJeacons of" the United Church 
"of England and Ireland shall use in their public ministrations." 

The following resolution was proposed by the Bishop of Oxford,* 
and carried unanimously : — 

"That the Surplice or Gown, as now worn in preaching, be still 

* Bishop Wilberforce. 

The following letter appeared In the Record of 7th July : — 

Sir, — Kindly suffer me to point out to the Rev. W. C. Moore, 
whose letter in your impression of tlie 23rd inst., has only to-day 
caup;ht my eye, that he raises a preliminary issue of even greater 
moment than that of Gown v. Surplice, i^or if his views of the 
limits and extent of the oath of canonical obedience be correct, it 
follows that every beneficed clergyman is in conscience bound to 
carry out every whim and private wish of his Bishop, provided 
only that it be not unlawful. 

That I may not misrepresent Mr. Moore, allow me to recall his 
words. He writes : — 

" Now, having just promised to obey my diocesan ' in all things 
lawful,' sinci^ I am not sure his request about the surplice involves 
anything unlawful, I feel conscientiously obliged to comply with 
his request." 

Here it at once becomes apparent that your correspondent has, 
to his own mind, entirely altered the terms of the oath, and sub- 
stituted the words, "in all things not unlawful," for those by which 
alone he is really bound. Let us look at the formula in its entirety : — • 

•' I, A. B., do swear that I will perform true and canonical 
obedience to the Bishop of W. and his successors in all things 
lawful and honest ; so help me God." 

If Mr. Moore's interpretation were the true one, let me ask him 
would there be ten honest incumbents at this hour in the Church 
of Englanil, and would not those ten be slaves? But, in fact, the 
word " lawful" here means " such as the Bishop can by law require 
me to obey," and nothing more. This is placed beyond doubt by 
the express judgment of the Judicial Committee of the Privy 
Council in the recent case of Long v. the Bishop of Capetown, the 
words of which I quote, — •" The oath of canonical obedience does 
not mean that the cler!:rymaa will obey all the commands of the 
Bishop against which there is no law, but that he will obey all 
such commands as the Bishop by law is authorized to impose." 
The distinction, it will be at once seen, is one of the very largest 
character, and affects the liberties, the comfort, and the conscience 
of every incumbent in the land. Remembering what obedience 
alone it is that beneficed clergy promise to their diocesan, I have 
long desired, not merely as a matter of good taste, but on moral 
considerations, that our Bishops would be more slow to lay their 
"earnest requests" upon their clergy, whether in charges or private 
interviews. These requests beyond what the Bishop " by Jaw is 
authorized to impose" in practice become "commands," and, as 
such, snares to conscientious minds, not quite clear as to the 
iinpoi't of "canonical obedience." A notable instance of this 
occurred a few years ago, when the Bishop of Winchester, then 
of Oxford, desired his clergy to read out in church on a Sunday 
the findings of the so-called Pan-Anglican Synod. Some of his 
Lordship's clergy, very iil-at-ease, because of their promise of 
canonical obedience, consulted me on the occasion, to whom I was 
able to point out how the whole of his pastoral letter was simply 
unauthorized and void. In that case, indeed, the request was for 

the commission of an illegal act, distinctly forbidden by the rubric 
after the Nicene Creed. 

Ill Mr. Moore's case, the Act, so earnestly requested by his 
Bishop, may or may not be illegal. The legality or illegality of the 
surplice as a preaching dress in ordinar}^ churches does not enter 
into the question of obedience to the Bishop — as I have demon- 
strated — just because it is not by law "imposed." To my own 
mind, and (so far as I can judge) to the great mass of the laity, the 
question of gown or surplice in the pulpit stands thus : — It is per- 
fectly certain that the black gown is a legal preaching dress. I never 
yet met with a lawyer, worthy of the name, who had any doubt on 
that head. The unbroken usage of 300 years, apart from other 
legal considerations, is conclusive on this point. It may well be, 
though this is open to grave doubt, and caunot be asserted without 
the decision of a competent tribunal, that it is also legal to preach 
in a surplice. In this state of things — -one dress being confessedly 
,and assuredly legal, the other being (at the very most) possibly 
legal — these practical questions arise : Ought a Bishop to use 
pressure to circumscribe the liberty of his clergy, plainly secured 
to them by the law, in this matter ? And ought Evangelical 
clergymen gratuitously to surrender their liberty and to yield to 
Episcopal pressure herein ? The law being clear on the side of the 
black gown, I hold that the clergyman is, on all moral grounds, 
bound to consider, not his diocesan's private likings or earnest 
requests, but the general good of his people, of the Church, and of 
Christ's cause. As often as an Evangelical clergyman lays aside 
the time-honoured preaching dress and adopts the surplice, by 
doing so he unjustly reflects upon the practice of the Reformers, 
and of all his predecessors in the ministry during 300 yea,rs — he 
rebukes his fathers and brethren in the (Gospel who still stand by 
the academical dress, and he puts it out of the power of a very 
large number (the great majority) of the oldest and therefore best 
of the Evangelical clergy ever to occupy his pulpit. He does more. 
He shakes the confidence of not a few of the most spiritually- 
minded in his congregation, and eventually alienates and loses 
them. The Bishop may speak of the surplice as a thing " in- 
diiferent." Why, then, the earnestness with which he requests its 
adoption ? Thd clergyman — when he first enters the pulpit, habited 
in white — may speak of it as a thing " indifferent." But many of 
the laity know too well how the Eitualists are demanding it as a 
thing not indifiereut, and their consciences are wounded, and the 
cause of Christ suffers. 

I am, Sir, your faithful servant, 


June 25, 1873. 

'To be obtained at the Office of the Chui'ch Association, 14, Buckingham Street, Strand, London. 
By Subscribers, for distribution, free. By others at the price of 2d per dozen, or U (id por 103. 

29th Thousand.] 

No. CXXX. 


|ornt of frapr, 


And coiisidered by the Council suiitalDlo for IPrivate l?x"ayer, 

Family "Worsliip, and any JN{teetin2;s Tor- tliose -who are 

specially interested in the Society's worlv:. 

ALMicnTT Gob, Heavenly Father, we desire to come into Thy 
presence as contrit^e sinners pleading the all-sufficient sacrifice, and 
all prevailing merits, of our Divine Redeemer. We would humble 
ourselves before Thee for our manifold transgressions and short- 
comings. AYe justly merit Thy correcting hand. Our privileges are 
great and our responsibility is great. We have not rendered again 
according to the kindness bestowed upon us. We have been permitted 
through Thy gracious Providence, now for three centuries, to enjoy 
as a Church the inestimable privilege of religious liberty and to 
possess in our own tongue Thine inspired AVord. Thou hast been 
pleased oftentimes to grant an abundant blessing to the labours of Thy 
faithful ministers among us at home and abroad, and hast made our 
Protestant nation a centre of light to the world. And now. Lord, 
what shall we say ? We are ashamed to life up our faces before 
Thee. Patal errors are propagated iu our midst which threaten 
the existence of our Eeformed Church. False brethren have crept in 
among us, who are setting at defiance her recognised doctrines and 
would bring us again uiider the yoke of spiritual bondage. Our eyes 
?re turned unto Thee. We desire to commit our cause into Thy hand. 
Thy dealings in former ages encourage us to hope. O God, we have 
heard with our ears, and our fathers have declared unto us, the noble 
works that Thou didst in their days and in the old time before them. 
And is Thine arm shortened that it cannot save ? Is Thine ear heavy 
that it cannot hear ? Wilt Thou refrain Thyself for these things, O 
Lord ? O that Thou wouldst rend the heavens, that Thou wouldst 
come down, and make bare Thine arm in behalf of Thy faithful 
servants. Stir up among us, we pray Thee, the Spirit; of Grace and 
of supplication. Bless the means which are now adopted for the 
exposure of error. Grant Thy blessings to the counsels of the 
Church Association, that it may maintain the Trutli among us. 

May we have a single eye to Thy glory. May no party feelings 
inai' our work. But may we be actuated by a simple desire to 
honour Christ, and to maintaiu those blessed truths for which 
oar martyred Eeformers yielded up their lives. To this end, 
graciously grant unanimity in our counsels. May our common 
dangers bind us together as one man in defence of the Gospel. 
The enemy, Lord, is bold and daring, but Thy power is all-sufficient 
to restrain. To Thee we commit our cause. And now. Lord, 
behold their threatenings, and grant unto Thy servants that with 
all boldness they may speak Tiiy word. Grant renewed energy to 
our faithful pastors. Deepen the impression among us of the 
vast interests at stake, of the perils which would follow the with- 
drawal of Thy Spirit. Let us prize more and more the simplicity of 
the Gospel, and be sensible of the danger of external pomp and 
ceremony in our worship, where spiritual life is wanting. May our 
faith ever rest on the one full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice offered 
upon Calvary, never to be repeated. Quicken in our souls the 
life and power of godliness. May there be more zeal, more love, 
more self-denial, more separation from the world. Give us bold- 
ness in the time of peril. Let there be no shrinking from duty, 
no fear of man, no attempt to compromise, where Thy truth is 
at stake. 

Bless, we humbly pray Thee, our families. Look upon our sons and 
daughters, exposed as they are to so many temptations, which might 
cause them to swerve from the simplicity of Protestant truth. Bless 
our Universities and Schools, and preserve them from the invasion of 
false doctrine. Bless our beloved Queen. Give wisdom to those 
■who are in authority. Guide the counsels of our leaders, both in 
Church and State, and raise vip faithful men to defend Thy truth. 
Qualify them for their work, by Thy gifts and graces, and sus- 
tain them by Thine Almighty hand. Finally, we pray that this 
season of anxiety and trial may result in a still fuller extension 
of the knowledge of Thy Word, that these perils may tend 
rather to the furtherance of the Gospel. To this end we would 
earnestly entreat of Thee a large outpouring of Thy Holy Spirit. 
May our hearts be fixed more singly on the great concerns of 
eternity, and may a revival of spiritual religion be vouchsafed 
among us. Awake, O north wind, and come thoy south : blow upon 
our garden that the spices thereof may tiow out. All this we ask in 
the name and through the mediation of our blessed Lord and Saviour. 
Jesus Christ. Amen. 

To be obtained at the Office of the Church Association, 14, Buckinaham Street, Strand, London. 
By Subscribers, for distribution, free. By others at 2(Z per dozen, or Is per 100. 

16th Thousand, j 





The foil otoing is tlie Speech of the Right Son. the Earl of Harrowhy , 
K.G., on Auricular Confession, delivered at a Meeting held at 
Bournemouth, in January, 1874. 

The Eaul of HARROWBY then rose, and after excusing himself for taking a 
prominent part on the occasion, being only a transient visitor, said: Some years ago 
it was my lot to preside over the enquiry which was instituted by Royal Commission 
into the teaching of Maynooth ; and having been thus led to look into their books 
on Confession, I am enabled to confirm the statement of Mr. Bardsley, that between 
their teaching on this subject, and that inculcated by English Ritualists, there is 
the smallest possible difference. And I further learned that the Church of Rome 
itself, in spite of the pi-ecautions with which it was obliged to fence round the 
practice, so fully admitted its dangers, that one of its most esteemed Fathers had 
said that he hardly knew " whether it saved more souls than it damned." 

Mr. Bardsley must have satisfied you that the practice of auricular confession 
is condemned by our Church, and is not sanctioned by Scripture; but you may 
ask, when so many of the practices now in vogue among our ritualistic clergy are 
at variance with the teaching of the Church and the Scriptures, why are you 
especially called together at this moment to express the opinion of a public meet- 
ing upon this one ? There are several reasons — 1st, it is not a dispute about 
abstract dogmas, about the interpretation of possibly disputed texts ; but it aff'ects 
directly that which is in fact at the root of our whole system, and the basis of our 
Reformed Church — the individual responsibility of every man himself to God. It 
is further, a matter difficult to be affected by law — confession to a priest, any more 
than to any other man, can hardly be forbidden by law, though it is against the 
spirit of the Church. It is in its accompaniments, and in the manner in which it 
is advocated and employed that it is so mischievous, so unchurchlike, so unscrip- 
tural. It is to these, then, and its social results, that I would wish to call your 
attention, in addition to what you have heard already. 

Now it is fair to say, that those who advocate auricular confession cannot— 
they do not (any more than the Roman Catholics) — deny the enormous power 
which they are claiming for their confessor : and they cannot deny — they do not — 


that to exercise it rightly very high qualifications are required. He is to be abso- 
lute in his authority, he holds in his hands admission or exclusion; he can enforce 
what penance he pleases ; he can make his o^vn terms. He has, in fact, the in- 
fallibility, which startles us when it is claimed by the Bishop of Rome — but which is 
exercised among us by young gentlemen of twenty-five, after they have made vows 
of obedience to their Sovereign and their Bishop — vows, M-hich under the advice 
of other confessors, they have no intention of keeping whenever they do not like 
to do so. 

They do not deny that it is difEcult to find all the combined qualifications " of 
the tenderness and love of a Father " with those of " a Physician of souls," of " a 
Theologian," " a Judge," — of a Proficient in ascetic morality, which should enable 
him to distinguish venial, from mortal, sins, and to assign to each its fitting 
penance; (for such penance recollect, is inseparable from confession, and thus the 
ioctrine of Purgatory for the one, and Hell for the other, inevitably follows.) 
How indeed do they describe the necessary qualifications ? See "Priest in Abso- 
lution," page 2, etc. " He has to direct the consciences of others without erring 
" on the side of rigour or laxity ; he has to probe wounds, without being stained 
" by them; he has to deal discreetly with women and youths ; and to listen to the 
" recital of the most shameful falls, without deriving any injury therefrom ; he 
" has to use firmness with great people, without yielding to any respect of persons, 
"and to minister to the ills of the poor, with as great a care as to those of the rich. 
"... As the Priest is the spiritual Father of his people generally, so does 
^ he especially discharge this function, in the ministry of Absolution. No love is 
"more pure, more honourable, more strong, more unwearied, more disinterested, 
" more careful, more liberal, more prudent, more patient, than that of a Father. 
''Such should be the character of the Priest's relations to those who open their 
" griefs to him." Now either all these qualifications of absolute wisdom and absolute 
viitue ought to be found in all the 20,000 men, young and old, who are ministering 
in every district of our country', or, if they are only to be expected in a chosen few, 
and those few alone are to hear Confession, the blessings of forgiveness of sins are 
to be confined to those who live Mithiu their reach, or who can afford the time and 
means for coming within it. Is this " ministering with as great a care to the ills 
of the poor, as of the rich ?" And yet this is essential to the theory ! Do we find 
the 20,000 men, young and old, in our several parishes, fit to be entrusted with such 
an engine ? Can we hope to find it ? But do we vnsh to find it ? For what does it 
infolve ? All otlier Confession, save that to a Priest, is repudiated. To a Pareui f 

To a Brother ? To a Sister ? To a Husband ? To a Wife ? To a Friend ? No;— 
there is no confession that is of value, save that to a Priest. There is no direction 
for future guidance, of value, save that of a Priest, — or if the advice of one of these 
natural, trusty, counsellors should not agree with that of the Priest in Confession— 
which is to be followed? Indeed, the penitent is not to be allowed to consult with 
any of these advisers as to the counsel of the Priest. No: perfect secresy is to be 
enjoined on both sides 1 Is it possible that any man should enter into the holy 
bonds of matrimony, if he knows that his bride has already acquired the habit of 
confiding every thought of her mind, every feeling of her heart, to another, — to a 
stranger? or even if he is in doubt whether such is not to be the case hereafter ? 
She is indeed, for his sake, to leave father and mother, but she is to take with her 
one, whose authority is more absolute than theirs ! Yet this is to be the system to 
which our people, our very children, are to be trained. 

I have a little volume for the use of children, in which they are exhorted, " if 
they are in the habit of giving way to any fault, to speak to some Priest about it. 
It is never too early to begin the habit." In another (Confession No. 1), the child 
is told that it is to the Priest, and to the Priest only, that a child must acknowledge 
his sins, if he desires that God should forgive him. 

Confession is in many cases, I am told, now insisted on as a preliminary to in- 
Btrnction for Confirmation, a rite which our Church generally requires as a prelimi- 
nary to admission to the Holy Table. Thus actually the Priest refuses admission 
to the Holy Table itself without confession, absolution, and penance. Does our 
Church permit such a condition to be imposed as a prelude either to Confirmation 
or Communion ? The whole system is estranged from that of our Church. This 
is indeed virtually acknowledged by the application of the memorialists themselves; 
for if the Sacramental Confession had been a part of our Church's system, she 
would surely long ago have made that provision for the education, selection, and 
licensing of duly qualified Confessors, which they ask her now for the first time to 

But now, in spite of all these apprehensions of mischief from the practice, of 
proofs that it is no part of our Church's system, and that it is not authorized by the 
Scriptures, is there any temptation from its results elsewhere, to borrow from the 
Church of Borne this, or other of its practices— such as the belief in Purgatory, 
the worship of the Virgin, prayers for the dead, and other superstitions, which are 
included in the Petition of the Memorialists. 

We, Protestant countries, certainly, when tested by the light of the Gospel, witil 


which we have been so freely favoured, have nothing to boast of. We cannot come 
forward like Pharisees, and say we are clean. But can the countries which revel 
in all the supposed advantages of Confession, boast of any such marked superiority? 
Are their youths more moral? Is the marriage-tie more respected? Is their 
literature more pure? Are their Clergy more respectable and respected? Are 
their educated Laity more religious, better citizens, better fathers of families, more 
patriotic? No ! there is no evidence from facts, to justify the introduction of 
these new practices into our old Church. 

In the midst of all the moral disorders which we must admit are pressing upon 
oi^r great community, outgrowing as it does, all the means that are in use for regula- 
ting and moralizing its enomious numbers, it is not surprising indeed, that many 
ardent spirits should lock beyond the limits of the accustomed and recognized 
agencies, which have hitherto been employed — for something new, — for something 
untried among us: it is not surprising either that the young, and especially those 
of the weaker, and more imaginative sex, should, in an age of disputation and 
doubt, rush with eagerness for refuge, to a system which pi'omises repose from 
doubt, and effectual assistance to troubled consciences. At this I am not surprised, 
but I confess I am surprised, that after the full discussion which the subject of 
Confession has received, after its general condemnation by the authorities of the 
Church, after the unanimous condemnation pnssed upon it by the Committee of 
Convocation, consisting of the whole Upper House, — that Clergymen of our Church 
should feel themselves entitled to persist in this innovation, and to continue to lead 
their flocks — virtually to force the younger members — into such miserable and 
dangerous practices, carried on as they are in many cases in secret, not daring to 
face the day, and leading to a course of deception and evasion, most alien to the 
character hitherto maintained by the English Clergyman. 

Let us hope that these strange delusions may paaa away. A Noble Friend of 
mine in the Upper House, Lord Salisbury, whilst denouncing these practices in 
the strongest terms, would have us treat them with contempt, as the crotchets of 
a few enthusiastic and misled men, deprecating all attempts to put them down by 

I admit the difficulty of dealing with them by the law ; but this I know, they 
cannot safely be treated with contempt. The numbers engaged in these prac- 
tices are too great and too organized, and the practices themselves are so much in 
harmony with the weakness of our nature, that they can hardly be trusted to die 
out of themselves. If law, however, cannot reach them., we must look at least to 
the force of opinion, and to demonstrations such as you have heard this evening, 
of their inconsistency with the teaching of the Scriptures, and of our Church, and 
of their dangerous tendency as regards society. 

It is not for us to dictate the remedy, but to throw the weight of individual 
influence, as well as that of such meetiags as the present, into the scale of soand 
reason, and true religion, and to trust to God for the result. 

To be obtained at the Office of the Chui'ch Association, 14, Buckingham Street, Strand, London. 
By Subscribers, for distribution, free. By others at the price of 3(i per dozen, or Is 6i per 100. 

33rcl Thousand.] 

jNo. cxxxm. 



The crisis through which our beloved Church is now passing, 
ought to suggest to all its faithful members the duty of special 
prayer that the Lord will interpose for the deliverance. Whilo 
they are careful to use every human means for its presei'vation 
from false doctrine, heresy and schism, their reliance for success 
must be upon Him who alone can defend it against all its 

Under this conviction and in remembrance of our Lord's 
promise, that, if two of his disciples should agree on earth as 
touching anything that they should ask, it should be done for 
them of their Father who is in heaven, the Council of the 
Church Association venture to recommend to their fellow- 
Churchmen the daily use, by themselves, or with their families, 
of the following or some similar Collect. Thus, not only two, 
but very many of the Lord^s people may agree in prayer, ac- 
cording to his meaning, as efiectually as if they were all 
gathered together at one time in the same place ; and it may 
be confidently expected that God will hear them, and bring 
the Church unharmed out of all its perils. 


Almighty God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, 
hear, we beseech thee, for his sake, who is our Great 
High Priest, the prayer of thy servants on behalf of 
our reformed Church, which in thy good providence 
has been established in this land. Thou hast graciously 
preserved it hitherto, and hast bestowed upon it, not- 
withstanding its sins against thee, many tokens of thy 

81 * 

loving kindness. Look upon it now, God, in thy 
mercy, and bring to nought all the evils, with which it 
IS threatened. Deliver it from all false doctrine, heresy 
and schism, purify its worship from the admixture oi 
weakness and superstition ; and preserve it from being 
again brought into bondage to human ordinances. 

Give unto all its Bishops the spirit of power, and of 
love, and of a sound mind ; that at this season of peril 
and perplexity they may both perceive and know what 
things they ought to do and also may have grace and 
power faithfully to fulfil the same, and grant mito all 
its Clergy that they may remember their solemn promise 
to teach the people committed to their charge out of the 
Scriptures, and enlighten them with the true knowledge 
and understanding of Thy word, that they may be good 
ministers of Jesus Christ. Grant also unto all, both of 
the Clergy and Laity who love the Lord Jesus Christ in 
sincerity that they may stand fast in one spirit, with 
one mind, striving together for the faith of the Gospel 
and supported by the assurance that the Lord reigneth, 
and will in his own time vindicate his sovereignty, and 
glorify himself on the earth. 

Keceive, we pray thee, Heavenly Father, these 
petitions which thy servants make in the name of thy 
well-beloved Son ; and do abundantly above all that 
they can ask, according to the riches of thy mercy in 
Christ Jesus, who is the Great Head of the Church, 
and who with Thee, Father, and with Thee, Holy 
Ghost, liveth and reigneth one God, world without end. 

To be obtained at the Office of the Church Association, 14, Buckingham Street, Strand, London. 
By Subscribers, for distribution, free. By others at 2ci per dozen, or Is per 100. 

25th Thii 




** We, your Majesty's Commissioners, have, in accordance with 
" the terms of your Majesty's Commission, directed our first 
" attention to the question of the Vestments worn by the Ministers 
" of the said United Church at the time of their ministration, and 
*' especially to those the use of which has been lately introduced 
" into certain Churches. 

" We find that whilst these Vestments are regarded by some 
" witnesses as symbolical of Doctrine, and by others as a distinctive 
" Vesture whereby they desire to do honour to the Holy Communion 
*' as the highest act of Christian Worship, they are by none regarded 
*' as essential, and they give grave offence to many. 

" We are of opinion that it is expedient to restrain in the public 
•' Services of the United Church of England and Ireland all varia- 
" tions in respect of Vesture from that which has long been the 
*' established usage of the said United Church, and we think that 
*' this may be best secured by providing aggrieved parishioners 
" with an easy and efiectual process for complaint and redress." — 
Extract from the first Report of the Royal Ritual Commission, dated 
August 19th, 1867. 


Extracts from the Judgment of the Privy Council in Ridsdale v. 
Clifton, as delivered by the Lord Chancellor {Lord Cairns), 
on May I2th, 1877. 


The question of Vestments so far as regards the Albe and 
Chasuble, decided in the case of Hebbert v. Purchas, was 
allowed to be re-argued before the Lords of the Judicial 
Committee of the Privy Council on the Appeal of the Reverend 
C. J. Ridsdale v. Clifton and others, from an Order of the 
Judge as Official Principal of the Arches Court of Canterbury, 

in which he followed the previous Judgment. Their Lordships 
gave Judgment on May 12th, 1877, confirming the decision 
appealed against. The Lord Chancellor (Cairns) in delivering 
the Judgment said : — 

" The conclusion drawn by this Committee in Hebbert v. Purchas, 
*' that the Advertisements of Queen Elizabeth on this subject had 
" the force of law under 1 Elizabeth, cap. 2, section 25, appears to 
*' their Lordships to be not only warranted, but irresistible. 

" Reading, then, as their Lordships consider they were bound to 
" do, the order as to Vestures in the Book of Advertisements, into 
*' the 25th section of the 1st of Elizabeth, cap. 2, and omitting 
" (for the sake of brevity) all reference to hoods, it will appear 
" that that section, from the year 1566 to 1662, had the same 
*' operation in law as if it had been expressed in these words : 
*' ' Provided always that such Ornaments of the Church and of the 
" Ministers thereof shall be retained and be in use as were in this 
*' Church of England by authority of Parliament in the second 
" year of King Edward VI., except that the surplice shall be used 
*' by the Ministers of the Church at all times of their public 
" ministrations, and the Alb, Vestment or Tunicle shall not be 
" used, nor shall a Cope be used except at the administration of 
" the Holy Communion in Cathedral and Collegiate Churches.' " 

Their Lordships, after delivering a very long Judgment, 
concluded thus : — 

" For these reasons, which, out of respect for the elaborate 
*' arguments so earnestly addressed to them, and not from any 
" hesitation as to the decision at which they should arrive, they 
*' have expressed at a length greater than is usual, are of opinion 
" that the decision of the learned Judge of the Arches Court as to 
" the Vestments worn by the Appellant, following that of this 
" Committee in Hebbert v. Purchas, is correct, and ought to be 
affirmed." — Official Copy of the Judgment of the Privy Council in 
Bidsdale v. Clifton, pp. 18 and 37. 

The decision of the Judge of the Arches Court was as 
follows : — 

" I must therefore hold that Mr. Ridsdale has offended against 
" the law in celebrating the Communion in a Chasuble and in an 
*' Albe, and admonish him to refrain from doing so in future." 

To be obtained at the Office of the Church Association, 14, Buckinf;ham Street, Strand, London, 
By Subscribers, for distribution, free. By others at 2d per dozen, or Is per 100. 

28th Thousand.l 

No. oxx:iv. 





Communion Service. 


Extracts from the Judgment of the Privy Council in Ridsdalb 
V. Clifton, as delivered by the Lord Chancellor {Lord Cairns)^ 
on May I2th, 1877 :— 

" Their Lordships will now proceed to consider the charge against 
the Appellant with reference to his position during the Prayer of 

"If it were necessary that there should be extracted from the 
Rubrics a rule governing the position of the minister throughout 
the whole Communion office, where no contrary direction is given, 
or necessarily implied, the rule could not, in their Lordships' 
opinion, be any other than that laid down in Hebbert v. 
Purchas, and they entertain no doubt that the position which would 
be required by that rule — a position, namely, in which the mini.ster 
Avould stand at the north side of the Table, looking to the south — 
is not only lawful, but is that which would, under ordinary 
circumstances, enable the minister, with the greatest certainty and 
convenience, to fulfil the requirements of all the Rubrics. 

" Their Lordships are of opinion that the words ' before tho 
people,' coupled with the direction as to the manual acts, are meant 
to be equivalent to ' in the sight of the people.' They have no 
doubt that the Rubric requires the manual acts to be so done that, 
in a reasonable and practical sense, the Communicants, especially 
if they are conveniently placed for receiving of the Holy Sacrament, 
as is pre-supposed in the office, may be witnesses of, that is, may 
Bce them. What is oi'dered to be done before the people, when it 

is the subject of the sense, not of hearing, but of sight, cannot be 
done before them unless those of them who are properly placed for 
that purpose can see it. It was contended that ' before the people * 
meant nothing more than ' in the church ;' to guard against an 
anterior and secret consecration of the elements. But if the words 
* before the people ' were absent, the manual acts, and the rest of 
the service, could not be performed elsewhere than in the church, 
and in that sense coram populo, nor could the Sacrament be dis- 
tributed except in the place and at the time of its consecration; 
and the argument would, therefore, reduce to silence the words 
' before the people,' which are an emphatic part of the declaration 
of the purpose for which the preparatory acts are to be done. That 
declaration applies not to the service as a whole, nor to the conse- 
cration of the elements as a whole, but to the manual acts separately 
and specifically." 

" There is, therefore, in the opinion of their Lordships, a rule 
suflBciently intelligible to be derived from the directions which are 
contained in the Rubric as to the acts which are to be performed. 
The minister is to order the elements ' standing before the Table ;' 
words which, whether the Table stands ' altarwise ' along the east 
wall, or in the body of the church or chancel, would be fully satisfied 
by his standing on the north side and looking towards the south ; 
but which also, in the opinion of their Lordships, as the Tables are 
now usually, and in their opinion lawfully, placed, authorize him 
to do those acts standing on the west side and looking towards the 
east. Beyond this and after this there is no specific direction that, 
during this prayer, he is to stand on the west side, or that he is to 
stand on the north side. He must, in the opinion of their Lord- 
ships, stand so that he may, in good faith, enable the Communi- 
cants present, or the bulk of them, being properly placed, to see, if 
they wish it, the breaking of the bread, and the performance of the 
other manual acts mentioned. He must not interpose his body so 
as intentionally to defeat the object of the Rubric and to prevent 
this result. It may be difficult in particular cases to say exactly 
whether this rule has been complied with ; but where there is good 
faith the difficulty ought not to be a serious one ; and it is, in the 
opinion of their Lordships, clear that a protection was in this 
respect intended to be thrown around the body of the Communicants, 
which ought to be secured to them by an observance of the plain 
intent of the Rubric." — Official copy of the Judgment of the l^rivy 
Council in Bidsdale v. Clifton, pp. 38, 40, 41, 42. 

To be obtaitipil at the Office of the Church Association, 14, Buckingham Street, Strand, London, 
I3y Subscribers, for distribution, free. By others at 2il per dozen, or Is per 100. 

26th Thousand] 



BY THE REV. CANON J. C. EYLE, Viear of Stradhroktt. 

The harm of the " Eastward position " consists in this, that it is the outward and 
Tisible sign of an unscriptural, mischievous, and soul-injuring doctrine. That doc- 
trine is nothing less than this, that the Lord's Supper is a proper sacrifice, — that 
the ofiiciating clergyman is a sacrificing priest, — that the communion table is an 
altar.^and that in the act of consecration some mysterious change takes place in 
the bread and w!ne. All this, and nothing less than this, lies at the bottom of the 
" Eastward position." It is, to speak plainly, a step toward the Komish sacrifices of 
the mass, which the 31st article of the Church of Englnna declares to be blasphe- 
mous fables and dangerous deceits." It ia in reality an action which pours con- 
tempt on the finished sacrifice of Christ. 

There are hundreds of English clergymen it may be feared, who nre using the 
Eastward Position as the symbol of a doctrine which they want to maintain and 
spread, but which ought to be resisted by all faithful Churchmen. The following 
extracts supply abundant proof that there is ground for saying this. They speak 
for themselves. 

Extracts from a Ritualistic Catechism, " T7ie Ritual Reason Why." — 

345. Why is the Priest to say it (the Prayer of Consecration) " standing iefore 
ihe " Alta,r '{ Because this is the position of a Sacrificing Priest. 

340. What is the prayer which the priest says kneeling at the midst of th« AUoa"? 

It is a humble acknowledgment of his own unworthiness to execute the ministry 
which he is about to perform, and of that of the communicants to join with him in 
the Sacrifice by feasting on the Sacred Victim who is now about to be offered. — 
Ritual Reason Why, p. 136. 

" Dr. Pusey says : — The standing before the Altar, means the primitive doctrine 
of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, and the bowing after the Sarum use at the Consecration 
means Eucharistic adoration." — Church Review, June, 1874. 

All Englishmen who desire the peace and prosperity of the Reformed Church of 
England have now a plain duty before them in the present day. They ought to 
resist any attempt to sanction the " Eastward position'* in the worship of the Es- 
tablished Church, by whomsoever it may be made, and from whatever quarter it 
may proceed. They ought to know that a strong effort is likely to be made in Con- 
Tocation to obtain a report to Parliament (under the recent letter of bpjiiuess for 

the revision of rubrics) recommending that the Prayer-book rubrics should be ift 
altered as to permit the " Eastward position " being used. To prevent such a 
Report being made, and to resist its adoption by Parliament, if it is made, should 
be the aim and endeavour of every fiiithf ul Protestant Churchman. 

Once for all, let the following points be impressed on our minds. 

1 . The " Eastward position " is utterly without warrant of Scripture. The four 
accounts of the institution of the Lord's Supper, written by St. Matthew, St. Mark, 
St. Luke and St. Paul, do not say one word to favour it. Any plain, impartial, un- 
prejudiced man, reading the simple narrative of the New Testament for the first 
time, would say unhesitatingly that whatever our blessed Lord did, when he broke 
the bread and gave the cup, was done before, under the eyes, and in full view of, 
the whole congregation of the Apostles. Why are clergymen to appear to make a 
mystery where our Lord made none ? 

2. The " Eastward position " is utterly without warrant of the Prayer-book, 
fairly and reasonably interpreted. The Communion office nowhere calls the 
Lord's Supper a sacrifice, and nowhere calls the Lord's Table an altar. 
The rubric which regulates and directs the minister's position, in the act of 
consecrating the bread and wine, distinctly says that he should " break the 
bread and take the cup into his hand before the peo]ole." If " before the people " 
can be twisted into meaning " with his back to the people," there really is no mean- 
ing in words ! The rubric, moreover, on this point, is the more remarkable, be- 
cause it first directs the minister to " stand before the table," and " order the bread 
and wine," so that he may afterwards do what he does "with readiness and de- 
cency." But, after he has ordered or put in proper position, the elements, he is to 
perform the act of consecration " before the people," — that is, standing in such a 
position that all can see what he does. 

3. Last, but not least, the " Eastward position " is a direct step towards Popery. 
Whether its friends and advocates like to admit this or not, it is a simple matter of 
fact. It is a retrograde movement towards the unscriptural and superstitious system 
of religion which our martyred reformers resisted to the death. It is a departure 
from the Protestant principles on which the Church of England was established 
three centuries ago, and which have been her strength, her glory, and her beauty. 
If we value an open Bible, a free gospel, and a deliverance from priestcraft, let us 
resolve never to consent to the sanction of the " Eastward position " in the Church 
of England, and let us use every lawful means to prevent it, 

Eor fuller information see Church Association Tract, No. XXX. 

To be obtained at the Office of the Church Association, 14, Buckingham Street, Strand, London. 
By Subscribers, for distribution, free. By others at 2d per dozen, or Is per 100. 

26tli Thousand.] 



By the KEV. CANON J. C. EYLE, Vicar of Stradhrohe. 

1. It is a fact that there is not the slightest proof in Scripture, that any "distinctive 
vestments" were worn, or considered necessary for the due celebration of the Lord's Sup- 
per, in the dnys of the Apostles. These " vestments" are purely and entirely an invention 
of a later age and of uninsjiired men. The gorgeous dress of the high-priest in the 
Mosaic dispensation was nc\er meant to be a pattern to the Christian Church. It was part 
of a typical system, which was ordained for a special purpose, and was intended to pass away. 

2. It is a fact that the use of these " distinctive vestments" is one of the many distinctive 
marks of the Church of Rome. That ttuhappy Church connects them closely with that cro^vn- 
ing error and blasphemous delusion in her theological system — the sacrifice of the Mass ! 

3. It is a fact that in the beginning of the English Reformation, when our Reformers 
were only half enlightened, the use of these distinctive vestments was expressly ordered. 
The first Prayer Book of Edward the Vlth, put forth in 1 549, contains the following 
words in the rubric before the Communion Service : — " The priest shall put upon him 
the vestment appointed for the ministration of the Holy Communion, that is to say, a 
white alb plain, with a vestment or cope." 

4. It is a fact that, as soon as our Reformers saw Scriptural truth fully and clearly, 
they expressly forbade the clergy to use these " distinctive vestments." The second 
Prayer Book of Edward the Vlth, put forth in l.')52, contains the following words at the 
beginning of the morning service, " The priest shall wear neither alb, vestment, nor cope, 
—but he shall have and wear a surplice only." 

5. It is a fact that when the English Reformation was Ijcgun over again in the difficult 
Jays of Elizabeth, after Bloody Mary's destructive reign, the only rubric put forth about 
the ministers' dress, expressly omits to mention the distinctive vestments," and only 
directs, in vague and general language, " such ornaments to be used as were in use in the 
second year of Edward VI."— But that these "ornaments" did not mean the famous 
Popish " vestments," as some assert now-a-days, is made as nearly certain as possible by 
two historical facts. . One is, that in the first yejir of her I'eign, Elizabeth issued "injunc- 
tions" ordering ministers to " wear such seemly habits as were most commonly received 
in the lattlr days of King Edward VI." — The other is, that in 15G4, the Queen issued 
"advertisements," in which it is ordered that "every minister saying prayers or adminis- 
tering sacraments shall wear a comely surplice." Neither in the injunctions or advertise- 
ments are the alb, the cope, or the chasuble mentioned. — Cardivell's Documentary Annals, 
vol. i. p. 193, 292. 

6. It is a fact that in 1569, Archl)ishop Parker, the first primate under Elizabeth, 
issued " Articles of inquiry" for the whole province of Canterbury, containing the follow- 
ing question : — " Whether your priests, curates, or ministers do use in the time of the 
celebration of divine service to wear a surplice, as prescribed by the Queen's injunctions 
and the book of Common Prayer ?" — Cardivell's Documentary Ayinals, vol. i. p. 321. 

7. It is a fact that in 1576, Archbishop Grindal, the second primate under Elizabeth, 
issued "articles of inquiry" for the whole province of Canterbury, in which he expressly 
asks " whether all vestments, albs, tunicles &c., and such other relics and monuments of 
superstition and idolatry, be utterly defaced, broken and destroyed." — Parker Society, 
GrindaVs I^emains, p. 159. The same inquiry was made by Aylmer, Bishop of London 

in 1577, and by Sandys, Archbishop of York in 1578. "Wliether it is in the least likely 
that such an imperious Sovereign as Queen Elizabeth would have allowed such inquiries 
to be made, if the "ornaments rubric" legalized the vestments, is a question I leave to any 
one of common sense to answer ! 

8. It is a fact that the Canons of 1604 say nothing about "distinctive vestments," as 
essential to the due celebration of the Lord's Supper. The 58th canon simply orders 
that " Every minister saying the public prayers, or ministering the sacraments, or other 
rites of the Church, shall wear a decent and comely surplice." This canon is the more 
remarkable, because the 24th canon orders the cope to be worn " in cathedrals'' by those 
who administer the communion. However mnch we may regret that the " cope" is sanc- 
tioned in cathedrals, it must be remembered that the chasuble and not the cope, is pecu- 
liarly the sacrificial garment. The use of the chasuble is not ordered. 

9 It is a fact that at the last revision of our Prayer Book, in the year 1662, nothing 
whatever was done to restore the " distinctive vestments," and not a word was added to 
our rubrics that could justify the use of them. 

10. It is a fact that for nearly three hundred years these " distinctive vestments" have 
never been used in the parish churches of the Church of England. Whatever some men 
may please to say, in the present day, about the lawfulness of alb, chasuble, or cope, there 
is no getting over the fact that all custom is dead against them, and that from the first 
days of Queen Elizabeth they have been disused and laid aside. 

11. It is a fact that the attempt to revive the use of "distinctive vestments," in the 
celebration of the Lord's Supper, is a thing of entirely modern date. It began with a 
party in the Church, which boldly avows its desire to unprotestantize the Church of Eng- 
land. It is pressed forward and supported almost entirely by those churchmen, who, both 
m doctrine and practice, are making unmistakable approaches towards the Church of 
Rome, and regard the Lord's Supper as a sacrifice. 

12. Last, but not least, it is a fact that the principal advocates of the Ritualistic move- 
ment in the Church of England, distinctly and expressly avow that the " distinctive vest- 
ments" in the Lord's Supper are not taken up and pressed upon us as a mere matter of 
taste, but as sacrificial garments and the outward expression of an inward doctrine. That 
doctrine is nothing less than the Romish doctrine of a real, corporeal presence, a real 
sacrifice, a really sacrificing priest, and a real altar in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. 
That this is the fact any one may satisfy himself by reading the evidence of Mr. Bennett, 
the Vicar of Frome, given before the Royal Commissioners in 1867. (First report, p. 72.) 
Mr. Bennett, in reply to a question, distinctly told the Commissioners that " the use of tho 
chasuble involved the doctrine of sacrifice," and that " he considered he offered a propi- 
tiatory sacrifice in the Lord's Supper." 

I lay these twelve facts before my readers, and commend them to their serious attention. 
I entreat them to mark, leara, and inwardly digest them. 1 unhesitatingly assert, in the 
face of these facts, that it is impossible to defend the use of the " distinctive vestments" 
in the celebration of the Lord's Supper, either by Scripture, the Prayer Book, the law of 
the land, or custom. Reason and common sense alike condemn them. I assert further- 
more that it is no trifling matter to allow any clergyman to use these vestments, that tha 
allowance will be the concession of a great principle, and that any effort that may be 
made, either in Convocation or Parliament, to obtain sanction for them, ought to be firmly 
resisted by every faithful Churchman. 

For fuller mformation. see Church Association Tract. No. XXXIII. 

To be obtiineil at the Office of the Church Association, 14, Buckingham Street, Strand, London. 
Br Subscribers, for distribution, free. By others at 2d per dozen, or Is per 100. 

23rd Thousand.] 




Ritualism involves doctrine ; '• what we taught in word," says 
Dr. Pusey, " the Ritualists teach in deed." The doctrine symbolized 
is sacerdotalism. 

Dr. Pusey has also said that it is in the nature of Englishmen 
to acquiesce in anything ; and that the public needs only a little 
leisure to get used to Ritual ; to learn to tolerate, if not to love it. 

It behoves, therefore, all true members of the Reformed Church 
of England — especially the clergy — to beware of giving, through a 
spirit of compromise, unconscious aid to the inroad of error. Our 
opponents are wise in their generation, and proceed in their work 
with patience, content with small beginnings. 

This strange and unscriptural system could not be forced by 
direct means on the minds of Englishmen ; they must, consequently, 
be taken at unawvires, and by stealthy approaches. " It would be an 
unmitigated (because dangerous) evil," said one of the Romanizing 
clergy in our Church, " if congregations were called upon at once to 
change their worship from sermon-hearing to sacrifice, without having 
learnt to receive the doctrine on which it rests." 

" The power of little" is unquestionably of great moment when 
applied to ingenious mixtures of truth and falsehood. The process of 
infusing poison into our Christian literature by degrees is nev^er more 
successful than when some of the most Evangelical doctrines and 
spiritual truths of the New Testament are plausibly mixed up with the 
subtle, and to some extent fascinating, and therefore more dangerous, 
heresies of the Ritualistic School of thought. Hymn Books are a 
favourite medium for propagating Sacerdotal error. There are more 
false views of doctrine inculcated through hymnology than is gene- 
rally acknowledged. Hence the necessity that exists for warning the 
members of our Protestant Church against this specious device. 

The Council of the Church Association have been led thus to 
refer to the subject of the development of Sacerdotal error by 
means of hymns, in order to offer a few words by way of appeal to 
those who, while holding and faithfully preaching Evangelical truth, 
are yet, it is to be feared, planting the bulb, or scattering the seed, 
of false doctrine, by the introduction into their churches of Hymn 
Books wherein false doctrine as well as superstitious practices are 
embodied. Some of the Hymns thus brought into use are directly 
founded on the doctrinal errors of the Church of Rome, as was shown 
in Tract No. 21 issued by this Association. In others, through the 
adoption of expressions capable of a double meaning, the minds of 
the less instructed members of our Church, are no less surely fami- 
liarized with Ritualistic organization and Sacerdotal doctrine. 

Can it be doubted that any volume of Hymns which contains 
numerous passages readily capable of being utilized for the inculca- 
tion of Romish error, is decidedly unfitted for use in a Church 
where Evangelical truth is taught. 


The Council would therefore very earnestly press upon Evan- 
gelical clergymen, the great responsibility they incur in the adoption 
of Hymn Books, containing false doctrine, or expressions even of 
doubtful meaning : a responsibility greatly increased by the fact 
that they reach the hands of many who have not the discrimination 
necessary to choose between the " precious and the vile." 

Moreover where such dangerous Hymns occur in the book 
adopted for use by the congregation, it is naturally presumed by 
many that the clergyman acquiesces in the doctrinal errors and cere- 
monies so promulgated, and thus ia some quarters these errors acquire 
a fresh impetus from his supposed approval of tbem. To allow mani- 
fest falsehoods, or what, in their effect, is equivalent, to be bound up 
in a collection of Hymns which, admitting it for argument's sake, are 
on the whole unobjectionable, seems so inconsistent that it is impos- 
sible to find any feasible excuse for such conduct. The fact that 
many standard Evangelical Hymns are blended with such, as have 
been referred to, only increases the evil because they act as a foil, 
in the first instance, to the unsound, and the minds of the unwary 
dooa become tainted with the error. 

It may be said that the most pronounced Protestant hymn 
writers have used language capable of a siuiiJar erroneous and dan- 
gerous construction to that above complained of, and that even 
Watts and Wesley may be thus cited. This is not denied, but in 
the case of all quotations which could be thus gathered, it would at 
once be recognised that it was needful to place a forced construction 
on the language — a construction wholly repugnant to the manifest 
spirit and intent of the writer. 

The question which the Council would submit to their brethren 
when considering the selection, or continued use, of a Hymn Book, 
is whether or not it contains hymns suited for the performances at 
a service combining Sacerdotal teaching and Komanizing Eitual? 
Whether doctrines contrary to the Ai'tieles of our Church are, or 
are not, here and there at least directly or indirectly taught ? 

The Council would further ask why such collections are 
selected to the exclusion of others of a more entirely scriptural 
character, which have of late years been issued by sound Protestants ; 
not to refer to older and very precious volumes ? 

Eaithfully and prayerfully then they invite the attention of 
the Clergy and Laity to the subject. Is not the evil referred to, 
gradually (aye, and rapidly) leavenmg the minds of the Church- 
going population ? Is ic too soon for those who cling to Reformation 
principles and Bible truth, to shake off all complicity with those who 
openly avow themselves as holding Sacerdotal doctrine, and adopt 
Eitual practices such as constitute " object lessons" in doctrinal 
errors repudiated at the Eeformation, and now sought to be reira- 
posed on the Church ? 

To be obtained at the Office of the Church Association, 14, Buclcinrrhain Street, Strand, London. 
By Subscribers, for distribution, free. By others at 2ii per dozen, or Is I'er 100. 

31st Th.ousand. 



The follovnng is taken from Canon Ryle's Speech at the 

Annual Meeting of the Church Association held on 

the 2bth February, 1876. 

Dr. Burgon, who has been lately appointed by Mr. Disraeli to tho 
Deanery of Chichester, preached in October 1873 two sermons at 
St. Mary-the- Virgin's, Oxford, and in them he remarked, that the' 
great question — 

'' Is nothing else but the growing dissatisfaction of the faithful Laity at tho 
" Romanizing movement within the Church of England, which is even now making 
" its way in many quarters unrestrained, and even unrebuked. Yes, sirs, it is that ! 
" The more thoughtful, and earnest, and faithful among the Laity of the Church 
" of England are growing impatient of the continual acts of aggi-esion which they 
" are constrained to witness, without having the slightest power to resist or check 
" their progress, or to escape from the calamitous consequences which they inevit- 
" ably and immediately entail on themselves and their families." — (p. 12.) 

Perhaps some might say : — "Well, if you don't like Eitualistic 
practices in your parish church, you are at liberty to go somewhere 


Dr. Burgon answered this question as follows : — 
" An Englishman is apt to say, — But pray w/uy am I and my family to be driven 
" away from our parish Church, because a young man, remarkably ill-furnished 
" with Divinity, or Learning, or Experience, or good sense, takes it into his head 
" that he will imitate the dress and adopt the method of the Romish Communion, 
" which I hate as cordially as did my Fathers at the time of the Reformation; and 
" insists on introducing practices which have never been heard of within the 
" Church of England during upwards of 300 years." — (p. 12.) 

Again, Dr. Burgon said : — 

" It becomes simply unbearable : a thing which absolutely may not, en -mot bo 
" endured. I speak of the studious assimilation of our practices, — our yestncnts, — 
*• our terminolog)',— our veiy ritual, to the practices, vestments, termmolog\ , ritual' 
" of Rome. Even this is not all. Encouraged by their successes, — emboldens I by the 
" forbearance of the lay people, and by the lamentable absence of anything liked is- 
" cipline within the Church,— yes, and above all, canned forward by tl-e ver} neces- 
" sity of their position, (for the logical development of a principle is of the nature 

* of a necessity, — be it true or be it false ;)— this little handful of disloyal men am 
" already teaching Romish Doctrines and inculcating Romish principles by eveiy 

• means in their power. How much further is this to be allowed to proceed ? 
** How much further ia this unfaithfulness to go on unrestrained ? The laymen'* 


" answer, — the answer of our faithful laity to that inquiry, — found expression in the 
•• Second and Third Resolutions which were proposed for consideration at the late 
" Oxford Diocesan Conference. A burning desire is very largely felt, — an inflexi- 
" ble determination is already manifesting itself in many quarters, — at all hazards, to 
" stem the Romanizing movements by constitutional means now. For my own part 
" I must be allowed freely to declare that no legitimate loeus standi for the leaden 
" of this mediieval school of thought and practice within the Church of England; 
" and that I can discover no legitimate course for such of them as really hold 
" those doctrines to which their practices unmistakeably point, but that they should, 
" as honest men, go out from among us, — go over to our open and avowed enemy, at 
" once." — (pp. 14, 15.) 

I must quote the words of Dr. Burgon once more in order to 
show how Eitualism alienates from the Church our Nonconformist 
brethren : — 

"1 behold with dismay the ghastly upgrowth of one more Sect, — one more Schism, — 
''one fresh aspect of Nonconformity ; and I mourn not least of all, because I see 
"plainly that these mediaeval extravagancies are making, if they have not already 
" made, reconciliation with our Wesleyan brethren a thing impossible. There is 
" no telling in fact how fatal is this retrograde movement to the progress of real 
" Churchmanship throughout the length and breadth of the land. * Ritualism ' 
" (for so disloyalty to the Chv/rch is absurdly called,) is the great difficulty with 
" a surprising number of the clergy in our large towns, — especially in the Northern 
** Dioceses. The working people sunply hate it. They will not listen to * Church 
" Defence' while this ugly phantom looms before them. Hundreds are being driven 
" by it into Dissent. ' I dare not call a Church Defence Meeting in this town,' 
" (writes an able and faithful incumbent:) ' it would be instantly turned into an anti- 
" Ritualistic demonstration.' Thus the cause of Christianit}' itself is suffering by 
" the extravagancies of a little handful of misguided men. They assume that their 
"outlandish ways are 'Catholic;' whereas they are schismatical entirely, — the out- 
" come of a lawless spirit, a morbid appetite, and undisciplined will. Indecent 
'• self-assertion and undutiful disregard for lawful Authority are even conspicuous 
" notes of this new sect." — (pp. 37, 38.) 

These remarks from a High Church Dean are well worth noticing. 

"Beware of promoting strife and division in the Church by adopting the tenets, 
" the practices, of the men against whom I have been putting you on your guard. 
" ' Ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find 
" rest for your souls.' Yes, rest and peace"; peace in life, and (what is better) peace 
" in death. These histrionic extravagancies may appeal successfully to the young 
"and impulsive, — may for awhile gratify the taste and captivate the imagination; 
" but they will be found sorry things to fall back upon in tunes of extremity, and 
«' amid the decays of age; in the hour of fainting nature, and on the bed of death. 
" There is wondrous little of the Gospel of Jesus Christ in this miserable resus- 
•* citation of effete Mediaevalism. It is of the earth, — earthy : an unspiritual, an 
" unwholesome, a mawkish, a wholly un-English thing." — (pp. 38, 39.) 

To be obtained at the Office of tlie Church Association, 14, Buckingham Street, Strand, London. 
By Subscribers, for distribution, free. By others at 2d per dozen, or 1« per 100. 

41st Thousand.] 

No. CXL. 



Christ Church, Oxford ; 
Hon. Ccmon of Norwich, Vicar of StradbroTce, and Rural Dean. 

My dear Friends, — I charge you all to make a practical use of 
tlae great doctrine of the Priesthood of oar Lord Jesus Christ. 
Remember and rejoice that your Lord and Saviour is not dead, but 
liveth, and sitteth at the right hand of God to be your friend, your 
advocate, your almighty, powerful, loving, tender-hearted High 
Priest. Some men never enjoy " heaven on earth" because they 
only take a partial view of the truth as it is in Jesus. What bold- 
ness it gives to a man in prayer when he feels that there is One 
pleading for him at the right hand of God. And oh ! how great 
the comfort we have in every time of trouble from feeling that we 
have a living Priest in heaven who has suffered himself, being 
tempted ; who knows alike the heart and the mind of every man. 
Take the position of a man here on earth who knows what poverty 
hunger, and thirst are, left alone, deserted by all but his Father in 
heaven. Oh ! what a comfort it is for such a man to feel that he 
is safe in the arms of Jesus. After all it is a grand comfort to feel 
that there is something in the heart of man to which the priestly 
office of Christ, when the heart is enlightened, exactly corresponds. 
It fits just like lock and key. A religion without a priesthood never 
goes down with man. Sacerdotalism never can meet the wants of 
man, but a religion without a priesthood of some sort never yet 
acquired much influence. The whole mystery of the mighty power 
of the Church of Rome — exercised, I am afraid, not for the good of 
men's souls — lies mainly in this, that she has succeeded in intro- 
ducing the doctrine of a human priesthood, which does to some 
extent satisfy the cravings of the natural man. But when the con- 
science is enlightened, by the Holy Spirit, and the understanding 
opened to see the meaning of Scrijiture, we find we have a High 
Priest who can be touched with the feeling of our infirmities, so 
that we can come boldly to the throne of grace that we may obtain 
mercy and find grace to help in time of need. The Lord Jesus cat 


feel for as becanse He knows what a man is. Jesus is able to saT© 
to the uttermost, because He ever livetb to make intercession for 
us. No priest ordained by man on earth can take the burden off 
our souls. Tell us not of any priest but Jesus Christ. What 
other priest could we want ? Why should we suffer ourselves to 
he borne away from the living fountain of waters, and taken to a 
fountain not blessed of God ? Let me charge you all, if you love 
spiritual life — if you desire to enjoy comfort in Christ — if you wish 
for comfort under trials — if you desire to be assured of your eternal 
salvation — grasp firmly the doctrine of the priestly ofl&ce of our 
Lord Jesus Christ. It is most important that you should carefully 
avoid any teaching which even appears to make men the raediators 
between ourselves and God. At all our religious meetings I 
earnestly hope that those who undertake to advise inquirers will 
press on them the great necessity of not hanging upon man, and 
looking to man, for " Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and 
maketh flesh his arm." (Jer. xvii. 5.) Lead the inquirer straight 
to Jesus. Tell him that Jesus died for him. Point out to him the 
sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Tell him who vrants advice how he can 
obtain help. Tell him that the great High Priest sitteth on the 
rio-ht hand of God, to be his friend and your advocate. Point out 
to him that He ever liveth to make intercession for them that come 
unto God by Him. Show liim the blessed truths contained in the 
Epistle to the Hebrews. Point out to him the fulness and com- 
pleteness of the Priesthood and finished work of Christ. Every 
man who has come to Christ should be able to say, " A burden has 
been taken off my back. A load has been taken off my conscience. 
Jesus Christ is the true High Priest. I want no absolution of man. 
I have found the true High Priest in Hun." And what we want — 
.ve who teach in the pulpit — is the habit of living and dealing 
■familiarly with Him, as with a friend and physician, to whom we 
[go in every time of trial. 

To be obtained at the Office of the Church Association, 14, Buckingham Street, Strand, Loudoa. 
By Subscribers, for di»*"ibution, free. By others at 2d per dozen, or Is jier 100. 

4etli Thousand.] 

No. CXLI. 

P. P. P. 

"When monograms were still in fashion, this was the monogram or 
rather cypher given in England to that pernicious work, " Hymna 
Ancient and Modern," previously styled,. Hymns Popish and Pro- 
testant, and well and truly did it deserve to be called " Popeet's 
Poetical Pioneee ! " In little more than a decade three editions 
of it have been published, each more advanced than the last, and 
yet there are some Members of the Church of England, and loyal 
members too in other respects who are so blind as to adopt even the 
latest and most extreme edition. 

We refer to those misguided brethren who thus far follow in the 
wake of the Eonianizing Clergy, especially those who boast that 
the book cannot hurt them, as well as others who have even gone so 
far as to mark the dangerous hymns that they make no mistake — not 
seeing that in so doing they but make them more attractive to 
their children. This very marking them as prohibited will make 
the forbidden fruit too sweet to be resisted ; and this the Eitualists 
perfectly understand. 

Look at the first edition with the Romish hymn of the Spanish 
Inquisitors. The very hymn sung by the monks and priests in pro- 
cession as the Protestant martyrs were led to the stake and the 

" Vexilla regis prodeunt." 

" The Royal Banners forward go." 

More than Thirty thousand persons were put to death m Spain by 
the Inquisition, and this was the Processional Hymn sung by their 
murderers ! 

It is still a favourite with the Eoman Catholic Church, and used 
at its Good Friday services of the Unveiling and Adoration of the 
Cross, which adoration of a material cross is of itself downright 
idolatry. Where, either in the Old or New Testament, are we 
authorised to make or worship any material cross ? It is the doctrine 
of the cross, the doctrine alone, which is our only hope. 
" O Tree of Glor^-, Tree most Fair." 

Is that what the Apostles called the cross ? No ; most emphati- 
cally no. On the contrary, according to St. Paul, it was an accursed 
tree. — (Gal. iii. 13.) If the cross on which our Saviour hung repre- 
sented sin and death then — and St. Paul believed it did — it cannot 
represent anything else now. That good disciple, Joseph of Ari- 
mathea, " begged the body of Jesus," but he did not ask for the 
cross ! Instead of exciting the mind to due contemplation of the 
triumphant issue of our Lord's sufi'erings, the material cross (as the 
late Bishop Phillpotts said) tends to chain it down to the suflerings 
themselves. Give us the living Saviour and the doctrine of the 
cross, and let his enemies keep the material cross and the crucifix. 

This hymn alone should have condemned the book in the eyes of 

82 * 

all faithful Protestants — but if that was Bot enough the following 
should have filled the cup of indignation — 

" Shall we not love thee, Mother dear ? " 

Is not this blasphemy ? For to sing hymns to a creature is an 
indignity offered to God. N'ever in the Bible are we told to worship 
the blessed Virgin. In that volume our Saviour is called the Son of 
God, the Son of David, the Son of Man, the Son of Joseph. 

Once only the People spoke of Him as the Son of Mary (the 
Romish title so frequently found in Hymns Ancient and Modern), 
but then it was in connection with his entire family, " Is not this 
the carpenter, the Son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, 
and of Juda and Simon ? and are not his sisters here with us ? " 
(Mark vi. 3). And accoi'ding to St. Luke he was at the same time 
also called the Son of Joseph. 

From the honour accorded by Holy Scripture to the Virgin Mother 
of our Lord we would in nowise derogate. " Highly favoured was 
she, and blessed among women," (Luke i. 28.) but we cannot forget 
that on a memorable occasion when she and His brethren stood 
without desii'ing to speak with Him, in lieu of promptly rising to 
go and greet her, or bidding those about Him make way for her to 
approach, our blessed Lord answered and said unto him that told 
Him, "Who is my mother, and who are my brethren ? " And then 
stretching forth His hand towards His disciples, added, " Behold ! 
my mother, and my brethren ! For whosoever shall do the will of 
my Father which is in Heaven the same is my brother, and sister, 
and Hio^/^er."— (Matt. xii. 46-50). 

" There is one God and one Mediator between God and man, the 
man Christ Jesus." These are the words of St. Paul, which neither 
Boman Catholics nor Ritualists can believe, for they trust to a 
woman's tender love, and must have a feaiale intercessor. 

How do they interpret the words of St. Peter when speaking of 
Jesus Christ of Nazareth, " Neither is there salvation in any other : 
for there is none other jzajwe under heaven given among men, whereby 
we must be saved." ? 

AVheu the Ritualistic compilers of Hymns Ancient and Modern 
saw the people were sufficiently accustomed to the Supplement, they 
issued a third edition, in which are numerous hymns teaching not 
only Idolatry and Mariolatry, but also Transubstantiation, and 
the Real Presence, Baptismal Regeneration, ex opere operato (by 
virtue of the act performed). Prayers for the Dead and Salvation by 

Some years ago the writer bought a copy of Hymns Ancient and 
Modern, with tunes, but when he became thoroughly convinced of 
the pernicious nature of the work destroyed it, being determined 
that no one should find such poisonous literature in his house. He 
could not and would not forget the words of the Apostle, let "no 
man put a stumbling block or an occasion to fall in his brother's 
way." — And therefore cast the volume into the fire. 


To be obtained at tlje Office of the Church Association, 14, Buckinshara Street, Strand, London. 
By Subscribers, for distribution, free. By others at 2d per dozen, or Is per 100. 

36th Thousand.] 



Bishop Wilberforce a few days before his sudden 
death gave the following advice to his Rural- Deans 
at Winchester House, as to the doctrine, which, he 
said, it is now sought to establish, viz. : — 

" That private Confession of Sin before the Great High 
Priest is insufficient, and that without Confession to a Priest 
a man cannot be sure of pardon, and especially cannot draw 
near to God in the Holy Sacrament." 

" Now of this I will say this system of confession is one 
of the worst developments of Popery. In the first place, as 
regards the penitent, it is a system of unnatural excitement, 
a sort of spiritual dram-drinking, fraught with evil to the 
whole spiritual constitution. It is nothing short of the 
renunciation of a great charge of a conscience which God has 
committed to every man — the substitution of confession to 
man for the opening of the heart to God — the adopting in 
every case of a remedy only adapted to extreme cases which 
can find relief in no other way. 

'' Then in families, it introduces untold mischief. It super- 
sedes God^s appointment of intimacy between husband and 
wife ; father and children ; substituting another influence for 
that which ought to be the nearest and closest, and producing 
reserve and estrangement where there ought to be perfect 
freedom and openness. 

" And lastly, as regards the person to whom confession is 
made, it brings in a wretched system of casuistry. But far 
worse than this, it necessitates the terrible evil of familiar 
dealing with sin, especially with sins of uncleanness, thereby 
sometimes even tending to their growth by making the 
horrible particulars known to those who have hitherto been 
innocent of such fatal knowledge, and so poisoning the minds 
of priest and people alike. A fact which has of late been 
very painfully brought home to me/' 

\_From the Iteport of the Address delivered by the late Bishop of 
Winchester to the Rural-deans of the Diocese, July 15, 1873, published 
in pamphlet entitled, " Se being dead yet speaketh," pp. 4, 6.] 

To be obtained at the Office of the Church Association, 14, Buckingham Street, Strand, London. 
By Subscribers, for distribution, free. By others at the price of Id per dozen, or 6d per 100. 

46th. Thousand.] 



The Bishop of Bath and Wells. 

" Persecution is indeed a vile and odious things 
equally unworthy of a free State or of a pure Church : 
but to bring in the aid of the law to prevent an 
authorized expounder of the Church's doctrines, one 
invested with power to speak in the Church's name, from 
using that power for the overthrowing of the Church's 
doctrine, this surely is not persecution, but justice in 
her simplest form. No community, however free from 
State control, can allow its ministers to give the lie to 
its own doctrines which they are employed to propagate : 
much less can a National Church, endowed with large 
revenues, and set in place of power and dignity, allow 
those who share in these advantages to contradict her 
teaching, and act in opposition to her laws. The firm 
repression of all such acts is not persecution, 
but a vindication of truth and law, without which no 
community can exist." 

[Extract from an Address, delivered at Wells, hy the Bishop of Bath 
and Wells, Octoher 12, 1875.] 

The Bishop or Lincoln. 

" When also a clerg3^man who has solemnly promised 
at his ordination to obey his ordinary (i.e., the bishop of 
the diocese), is commanded by his bishop, in the exer- 
cise of his episcopal authorit}^, to submit to the decisions 
of the Court of Arches as now constituted, I confess 
that I cannot understand how in such a case the 
decisions of the Court have no spiritual validity, but, 
on the contrary, a clergyman who sets them at defiance, 

appears to be openly despising and resisting both 
spiritual and temporal authority. 

"It may indeed be alleged by some well meaning 
persons that such clergymen are suffering persecution, 
and have claims to sympathy and support. But the 
fact is, such clergymen are not martyrs but per- 
secutors. They are persecuting the Church of 
which they are ministers by disturbing its peace, 
and by stirring up strife, and by spreading confusion 
and anarchy, and by marring its efficacy, and imperilling 
its safety. As was observed long ago by St. Augustine, 
such persons are like Agar and Ishmael, who complained 
of persecution, but who persecuted Sarah and Isaac 
(Galatians iv. 29)." 

[Extract from a Letter of the Bisliop of Lincoln to Rev. Canon HbZe, 
«in the action of the JEnglish Church Union, dated January 10, 1877.] 

The Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol. 
" The sober and religious persons of a congregation 
are frequently harassed and really persecuted by the 
changes and innovations in ritual which are often per- 
sistently introduced in spite of all remonstrances. To 
fall back upon the law in such cases, or to appeal to 
the aid of a Society that is interested in main- 
taining the law, is simply self-defence, and is 
very far removed from persecution. The true 
persecutors, as was wisely said by one of our prelates 
in a letter published early in the present year, are 
those who resist spiritual and temporal authority, 
and by their innovations spread confusion and 

\_Extract from "Some Present Dangers of the Church of England " by 
the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol, page 27.] 

To be obtained at the Office of the Church Association, 14, Buckingham Street, Strand. Londonr 
By Subscribers, for distribution, free. By others at 2d per dozen, or Is per 100. 

89th Thousand.] 



Extract from a Sermon, " Nehemiah, a Pattern to Builders," preached 
hefore the University of Oxford, hy J. W. Buegon, b.d., Dean 
of Chichester, October 13th, 1878. 

'* One man in a College — if he "will — is able to raise the tone of 
the -whole society. It will help ,him, no doubt, if his intellectual 
capacity corresponds, to some extent, with his moral excellence ; 
but no amount of intellectual power can effect the result I sjoeak 
of, unaided: whereas the attainments which make a great figure in 
the Class-list may be awa}', and yet the result will follow — follow 
inevitably — if there be but the holy purpose, the bright example, 
the consistent life. Something quite apart frora that counterfeit 
thing, now, unhappily, highly popular in certain quarters, which 
Beeks refuge in a Confraternity, or a Guild, or a secret Society with 
pome new-fangled nane, and often formed for some questionable 
purpose: something quite distinct from all this is meant. (When, 
by the way, when will men learn to be content with the brother- 
hood — of the Church of England ? the Guild — of the Church 
Catholic ? the Communion of Saints ? Why multiply these nar- 
rowing influences, — these unauthorized denominations, — which only 
promote sectarianism and party spirit, and cramp the spiritual life 
mstond of promoting its fi-ee development ?) 

" It really would seem as if a miserable endeavour to familiarize 
our people with Romish dresses, Romish gestures, Romish prac- 
tices, Romish phraseology, Romish doctrines ; as if this were the 
legitimate aim of English Divines in these last days ; instead of 
being as it is, nothing else but a crime. A material theory of the 
Holy Eucharist, — repudiated by all the formularies, and ignored 
by all the Doctors of our Church, — lies at the root of this new 
development of error : together with the impetuous advocacy of the 
practice of habitual auricular Confession. What would such men 
as Cranmer, Andrewes, Hooker, liaud, Sanderson, Bull, Pearson, 
Beveridge, — what would the framers and revisers of our Book of 
Common Prayer have said, — could they just now appear and stand 
among us ? Meantime, the weaker disciples of this new sect — (for r- 
sect it is), — the i-ank and file of this wholly uncatholic movement, — 
indulge freely in (what may be called) the millinery of the subject : 
display a passion for bright colours, worthy of the silliest of the 
softer sex : come into Church looking positively smart. 

" ye younger men, members of the reformed Church of England, 
the purest Church, because the most Scriptural and Apostolic, in the 
world ; but whatever its merits or defects may be, the Churcli of 
youi' fathers, the Church of your Baptism, the Church to which 

jou owe your life : — do ye beware of tliis miserable counterfeit, 
this pitiful caricature rather, of true Religion, " pure and undefiled," 
— this unhealthy yearning after the corrupt method of a Church 
which is branded in the Apocalypse with infamy and a most 
tremendous doom. ' Come out of her, My people' (saith the 
Spirit), ' Come out of her, that ye may not be partakers of her 
sins and that ye receive not of her plagues !'* This emasculated 
imitation of her method — this immoral reproduction of her teaching, 
— ought to be abhorrent to every high and manly instinct of your 
nature. I do believe that it is abhorent : for you must be sadly 
changed within the last two years if you are not — as a body — brim- 
ful of the promise of bt'i.ti^r things : you the flower of England's 
youth ! you, the earnest of England's future greatness ! But I 
cannot set before you Nehemiah as a builder — a repairer rather — 
of the walls of the Holy City — without imploring you, those among 
you especially who are destined for the Ministry, and thus destined 
to become builders almost in a literal sense, to build as the Fathers 
of old time builded. Repair the breaches ! Set up the battlements 
afresh ! Rise to the greatness, the grandeur of your calling ! and 
have nothing to do with the pitiful puerilities of those unfaithful 
and disloyal men, whose only fit place is within the Church of 
Rome, — and who will never rest, if they logically follow out their 
own principles, till they get there. 

" I am not tmaware, of course, that it is not only on the side of 
mediseval Romanism that the citadel of Truth is just now being 
fiercely and unremittingly assailed. Infidelity is very rife among 
us. The facts of Christianity are deliberately flouted : the very 
foundations of all Faith, all Hope, are openly denied ; denied by 
men calling themselves philosophers ; denied in the sacred name of 
' Science.' And ' Why have you not something to say to Unbelief ?' is 
just the plausible retort of gentlemen writhing under castigation 
for extravagances of quite a different class ; and which, if they be 
errors, they claim to be at least the errors into which men are 
betrayed through excess of Faith. But it is a golden maxim iu 
every undertaking, — in Sermons it is even an indispensable rule, — 
to attend to one thing at a time. This first. And next, I entirely 
deny that the revival of Medievalism is any outcome of Faith at all. 
As seen among ourselves, it is notoriously the product of nothing 
so much as vanity, and self-will. "Very lawlessness is it, from first 
to last ; an immoral, and (what is singular) an utterly demoralizing 
jhing. But the worst feature of all is, that it is effectually paving 
the way for Unbelief — making common cause with it — lending it a 
helping hand. Tes ; for whatever reason, the oscillations of a 
thoroughly unsettled mind are ever to and from the opposite poles; 
of debasing Superstition on the one hand, — of the belief in 
nothing, on the other. The realms seem very different, but their 
confines more than meet. No boundary -line will ever be effectually 
drawn between them. Natural boundaries they have none." — (pp. 
10, 11, 18, 19, 20.) 

*ReT. XTiii. 4. Consider also chapter xvii. and xviii. 

To be ebtained at the Office of the Church Association, 14, Buckingham Street, Strand, LondoD. 
By Subscribers, for distribution, free. By others at 2d per dozen, or Is per 100. 

39tli Th.ousand-] 

No. CXLV. 



Come, my sons, listen to your venerable Mother. I address you 
in terms of sorrow, and Avitli heart oppressed. I have endeavoured 
to nurture you in the dogmatic teaching of the everlasting Gospel 
and in the purest forms of worship. I have arranged our every 
service so that all may be handmaids of Scripture. Teaming over 
you with maternal love, my education has inculcated the holiest way 
of truth. But my voice has often been unheeded : and you have 
slighted me as non-elastic, and timidly suspicious of novelties of 
religious thought. 

In tenderness let me reprove you for a notable instance of way- 
ward straying from my paths. 

One subject has engaged my supreme solicitude. Above all 
things I have sought that the Holy Sacraments, ordained by Christ 
Himself, should be duly administered, and intelligently received. 
But here sad deviation from my hallowed rule gives me deep grief. 
The Sacrament of the Lord's Supper bears painful witness. 

Fairly meeting the question, Wliat is the purport of this blessed 
rite, I have stated the design with which it is most solemnly enjoined. 
I have declared in terms which no distinctness can surpass, that it 
is divinely instituted in continual remembrance of the death of Christ. 
I have laboured to be emphatic in this declaration. There is no 
ambiguity in my words, that " Christ instituted and in His holy 
" Gospel commanded us to continue a perpetual memory of His 
" precious death until His coming again." I testify that we receive 
God's creatures of bread and wine " in remembrance of His death 
" and passion." I recall the words of His lips, " I)o this in remem- 
"brance of Me." I present the consecrated elements with the 
exhortation, " Take and eat this" and " Drink this, in remembrance." 
Thus in the Supper of the Lord I have stirred up memory to 
spread her wings and fly back to the scene now patent only to the 
eye of faith. Memory has its dealings with the past. It revisits 
scenes removed by intervening time. It recalls what actual sight 
no more can view as present. I have striven to help enhghtened 
communicants to revisit Calvary, and to remember Jesus hanging 
on the accursed tree. J have exhorted them to take the brokea 
bread, clasping to their hearts the assurance that Christ's body 
was given unto death to purchase pardon ; and to drink the poured- 
out wine, believing verily that His blood was shed to wash out sin. 

But do I instruct the officiating minister to renew a sacrifice? 
Do I encourage tlie conceit that the cross may be again erected — 
that Jesus may be again presented as an atoning offering ! — that 
expiation may be again made — that our Lord can again bow the 
head and give up the ghost ? If this portion of the awful scene 
could be repeated, would not darkness again veil the world and the 
earth shake, and the rocks be rent, and the graves burst open ? It 
is evident that such renewal of the work on the cross is utterly delusive ; 
and such a figment of vain fancy contradicts the nature of a 
sacrament. Once and once only did our blessed Lord lay down 
His life. His death was a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, 
oblation, and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world. "What man 
endued with sense would repeat a transaction which has been fully 
accomplished ? Can further efficacy be required for a performance 
which is wholly and for ever efficacious ? I have studiously 
deprecated the notion of such repetition. 

But I do more. I use negation to exclude the baneful error. 
When Popery profaned our services, and paraded unscriptural rites, 
a term was prevalent correlative to sacritice. The holy table was 
miscalled an altar. The term was craftily devised. It implied that 
on it a victim died. It had no meaning without consequent act. It 
supposed a sacrifice, as father involves a child, as a font precedes 
baptism, as a grave is prepared for burial, as a sickle is significant of 
reaping. Could I perceive this snare and tolerate the term ? In 
faithfulness I could not spare it. I applied an obliterating pen. I 
thoroughly purged the reformed ceremony of the worse than 
blemish. But many of my children reintroduce it. Is this filial 
submission to my refoi-ming rule ? Let the tongue pause before it 
pronounces what I so pointedly have denounced. Let it not utter 
what I have so rigidly banished. The term altar belongs to Rome's 
most deadly superstition. He is no faithful son of England's Church 
who uses it habitually and with design. 

Thus great has been my zeal to exhibit the scriptural view of the one 
sacrifice. Spare me the pain of bewailing fruitless labour. I have 
taught that at Calvary the wonder of wonders was accomplished — 
that an offering was made all-sufficient, once for ever to make satis- 
faction for all sin. I have shown that the offering was ma,de for us 
bat not by us — that Christ was the Victim, and that He presented 
Himself: that He was the Lamb of God, and that He was the sacrificing 
Priest, Could guilty man approach God with any worthy offering ? 
Away with such fallacy ! It constitutes man the co-efficient agent 
in atonement. Man could have no part in presenting the original 
sacrifice : can he presume to claim the power of reiteration ? Can 
he ascend to heaven and bring Christ from His throne and place 
Him on an altar fabricated by human hands and call on God's 
attributes to accept payment ? Turn, shuddering, from the thought. 
Mockery is the least fault of those who madly dream that when they 
consecrate they do more than commemorate Christ's death. In my 
school the lesson is most clear that repetition of sacrifice is a 
superstition fraught with mischief and delusion. 


But still 1 exhort my children to seek supreme delight in due 
commemoration. It should be as heaven begun to ponder the in- 
struction of the consecrated elements. Hence I call to continual parti- 
cipation in the bread and wine with realizing faith and superabounding 
love. The periods of celebration I do not rigidly prescribe. Much 
must be left to varying circumstances. Long abstinence from the 
ordained feast would argue deficient love and neglect of positive 
command, and would impoverish the soul. Too frequent reception 
might begefirreverent familiarity. Thoughtful of the evil of extremes, 
m my invitations I discountenance all unhallowed procedure. I warn 
the worshippers to take off their shoes when they tread holy ground. 
With this purpose I enjoin solemn examination in the vestibule of 
this ordinance. I require that the heart be searched most deeply by 
the lamp of truth. Let the Spirit's aid be called to ascertain whether 
repentance is thorough, whether the heart is broken for sin and from 
sin — whether faith burns in brightest blaze, and relies with joy 
unspeakable on the merits of the dying Saviour — whether love rules 
each thought, and no unkind feeling retains a place in the whole 
region of the mind. 

Such examination is no trivial work. It compels deliberate 
searching. It may not be enterprised rashly and concluded but 
after most painstaking search. Much preparation is thus necessi- 
tated. The survey of the spiritual state demands much thought and 
prayer. It thus excludes too frequent participation as incompatible 
with precautionary safeguards. Thus I protect the holy table from 
familiarity and presumptuous intrusion. 

In this spirit I forbear to press the holy memorials indiscri- 
minately on promiscuous guests. I use not this rite as a means of 
conversion and first approach to Christ. I urge not dead souls at 
this banquet to seek the kindling of inner life. I rather invite 
believers to participate because they live, and that they may 
invigorate their life. I bid them to come because they have 
received the Spirit in His enlightening power, and earnestly desire 
that His gifts may expand in stronger shoots. Mark my authoritative 
words : I call those who " truly and earnestly repent them of their 
" sins, and are in love and charity with their neighbours, and intend 
" to lead a new life, following the commandments of Grod and walking 
"from henceforth in His holy ways, to draw near with faith." I place 
on their lips the solemn declaration, that " the remembrance of their 
"sins is grievous unto them, and the burden is intolerable." I warn 
the light, the frivolous, the worldly-minded, no less than the openly 
unrighteous and profime, to stand apart and not to call down 
vengeance by awful trifling, when professing to hold solemn dealing 
with God. 

Lowly penitents and devout believers are indeed welcomed by 
me. Let such draw near with ftiith, and receive all the benefits 
which this Sacrament presents. Let them retire with their faith 
enlivened, their grace strengthened, their hopes expanded, their 
consecration to God's service deepened. Let them renew Christian 
work, realizing that their sins are all pardoned, their fears removed, 

punishment averted, wrath quenched, God reconciled, peace 
purchased, heaven in prospect, and all the blessings of the everlasting 
Covenant sealed to their souls. Let them go on their way rejoicing 
in God as their own God for ever — in Christ as their loving and 
all-sufl&cient Saviour — in the Spirit as their Comforter, and as 
knowing that all things are working together for their good. Let 
them eschew the friendship of the world which is enmity with God : 
let them come out and be separate and touch no more the unclean 
thing : let them be established in the faith that God has received 
them, and that they are the sons and daughters of the Lord God 

Dearly beloved, receive my teaching — obey my precepts — act out 
mv rule, and marvellous results may be expected. My true sons, 
nourished with all goodness, eminent as a city on a hill, " fair as the 
" moon, clear as the s\m, terrible as an army with banners," would 
then sliine as lights in the world, and diffuse purity as the salt of the 
earth. Men would witness their exalted walk, and acknowledge 
that they are the heirs of heaven. Many, too, who are warned that 
the heavenly feast is not spread for them, and that they are not 
meet for the Supper of the Lord, might retire with downcast heads. 
Godly shame and sorrow might be awakened by the repelling 
check. Many might, by the Spirit's blessing, be thus led to 
genuine repentance and meetness to join the happy guests. The 
Lord's Supper, duly administered, might be the seed of a large 
harvest of saved souls; but misrepresented and misused, might 
collect a crowd to seal their condemnation. 

May the gracious Lord avert such baneful streams of evil ! 
Kumbers may make a goodly show, but numbers are not proof of 
worth. Numbers indeed I greatly covet : but not of unenlightened 


Qlouoeater, Dec. ISTS, 

To be obtained at the Office cf the Church Association, 14, Buckingham Street, Strand, 
London. By Subscribers, for distribution, free. By others at 3d per doz. or Is 6d per 100. 
25th Thousand.] 

T^o. CXLVI. 


Extract from the Judgment of the Court of Queen's Bench, 
delivered by Lord Chief Justice Cockburn in the Clewer Case, 
March 8, 1879. 

**It is the undoubted right of every inhabitant of every 
parish in the kingdom^ desirous of frequenting the parish 
church, to have the services of the Church performed according 
to the ritual of the Church, as established by law, without 
having his religious sense shocked and outraged by the intro- 
duction of innovations not sanctioned by law or usage, and 
which may appear to him to be inconsistent with the simplicity 
of the Protestant worship and to pertain to a religion which 
he believes to be erroneous, and the ritual of which is not that 
of the Church of England." 

"We cannot but be sensible of the apparent incongruity which 
is involved in the interference of a temporal Court between a 
Bishop and one of his clergy, in a matter of ecclesiastical 
discipline. But it must be remembered that there is a third 
element in the case which must not be lost sight of. In these 
questions of doctrine or ritual the laity are interested, and 
deeply interested, as well as the clergy. As an institution 
endowed and maintained by the State, the Church exists for 
the benefit of the laity. It is the right of the latter, being 
members of the Church, to take part, under the ministratiou of 
the clergy, in the public worship, as well as to have the benefit 
of the various rites and services of the Church according to the 
ritual of the Church as by law ascertained and established. 
One of their most sacred and valued rights is infringed when 
they are driven to abandon their churches by the introduction 


of a ritual wLicli is not that of the Church, and which appears 
to them to be an advance towards a religion which is not that 
of the Reformation/* 

" Now, not only do we think that, on the construction of the 
•tatute, the Bishop had no discretion in this matter, but we are 
further of opinion that, the purpose of this legislation being to 
maintain uniformity of doctrine and ritual, and it being the 
right of the parishioners to have the services of the Church 
performed according to the law of the Church, even if the 
Bishop had discretionary authority in such a case, he ought, 
having here a judicial, or, at all events, a gwasi-judicial duty to 
discharge, to have used it to allow an inquiry to take place. 
We do not think, therefore, that we should be justified as matter 
of discretion in withholding the writ. But it was suggested 
that the Public Worship Act having made the concurrence of 
three parishioners necessary to found a complaint to the Bishop, 
we ought not, in the exercise of our discretion, to give effect 
by mandamus to the complaint of one. But the obvious answer 
is that if the Legislature had intended that any change in this 
respect should be made in the Church Discipline Act, which it 
advisedly keeps alive, it could have introduced such a provision 
in the later Act. If it was incumbent on the Bishop to enter- 
tain the complaint on the application of a single parishioner — 
and we think he had no discretion in the matter — it cannot be 
open to us as a matter of discretion to withhold the redress 
which the applicant seeks at our hands. The rule for a 
mandamus to the Bishop to issue a commission, or send the 
case at once to the Court of Arches by letters of request, must 
therefore be made absolute." 

To be obtained at the Office of the Church Association, 14, Buckingham Street, Strand, London, 
By Subscribers, for distribution, free. By others at 2d per dozen, or Is iier 100. 

Seth Thousand.] 


By the rev. J. C. RYLE, M.A., 

Christ Church, Oxford; 
Eon. Canon of Nonvich. Vica/r of Stradhroke, and Rural Dean. 

The times require of us an awakened and livelier sense of the 
unscriptiiral and soul-ruining character of Romanism. 

This is a painful subject : but it imperatively demands some plain 

The FACTS of the case are very simple. No intelligent observer 
can fail to see that the tone of public feeling in England about 
Romanism has undergone a great change in the last forty years. 
Father Oakley, the vrell-known pervert, an ally of Cardinal 
Newman, asserts this triumphantly in the last number of the 
Contemporary Review. And I am sorry to say that, in my judg- 
ment, he speaks the truth. There is no longer that general dislike, 
dread, and aversion to Popery, which was once almost universal in 
this realm. The edge of the old British feeling about Protestantism 
seems blunted and dull. Some profess to be tired of all religious 
controversy, and are ready to sacrifice God's truth for the sake 
of peace. — Some look on Romanism as simply one among many 
English form.s of religion, and neither worse nor better than others. 
— Some try to persuade us that Romanism is changed, and not 
nearly so bad as it used to be. — Some boldly point to the faults of 
Protestants, and loudly cry that Romanists are quite as good as 
ourselves. — Some think it fine and liberal to maintain that we have 
no right to think any one wrong who is in earnest about his creed. 
— And yet the two great historical facts, (a) that ignorance, im- 
morality, and superstition reigned supreme in England four 
hundred years ago under Popery, (b) that the Reformation was the 
greatest blessing God ever gave to this land, — both these are facts 
which no one but a Papist ever thought of disputing fifty years 
ago ! In the present day, alas, it is convenient and fashionable to 
forget them ! In short, at the rate we are going, I shall not be 
surprised if it is soon proposed to repeal the Act of Settlement, and 
to allow the Crown of England to be worn by a Papist. 

The cause* of this melancholy change of feelii\g are not hard tc 


(a) It arises partly from the untiring zeal of the Romish Church 
herself. Her agents never slumber or sleep. Tiiey compass sea 
and land to make one proselj^te. Tiiey creep in everywhere, like 
the Egyptian frogs, and leave no stone unturned, in the palace or the 
workhouse, to promote their cause, (b.) It has been furthered 
immensely by the proceedings of the Ritualistic party in the Church 
of England. That energetic and active body has been vilifying the 
Eeforuiation, and sneering at Protestantism, for many years, with. 
only too much success. It has corrupted, leavened, blinded, and 
poisoned the minds of many Churchmen, by incessant misrepresenta- 
tion. It has gradually familiarized people with every distinctive 
doctrine and practice of Romanism, — the real presence, — the mass, 
— auricular confession and priestly absolution, — the sacerdotal cha- 
racter of the ministry, — the monastic system, — and a histrionic, 
sensuous, showy style of public Avorship ; — and the natural result 
is, that many simple people see no mighty harm in downright genuine 
Popery ! Last, but not least, the spurious liberality of the day we 
live in, helps on the Romeward tendency. It is fashionable now 
to say that all sects should be equal, — that the State should have 
nothing to do with religion, — that all creeds should be regarded 
with equal favour and respect, — and that there is a substratum of 
common truth at the bottom of all religion, whether Buddhism, 
Mahometanism, or Christianity! The consequence is that myriads 
of ignorant folks begin to think there is nothing peculiarly 
dangerous in the tenets of Papists any more than in the tenets 
of Methodists, Independents, Presbytei-ians, or Baptists, — and that 
we ought to let Romanism alone, and never expose its uuscriptural 
and Christ-dishonouring character. 

The consequences of this changed tone of feeling, I am bold to say, 
will be most disastrous and mischievous, unless it can be checked. 
Once let Popery get her foot again on the neck of England, and 
there will be an end of all our national greatness. God will forsake 
us, and we shall sink to the level of Portugal and Spain. With 
Bible-reading discouraged, — with private judgment forbidden, — with 
the way to Christ's cross narrowed or blocked up, — with priestcraft 
re-established, — with auricular confession set up in every parish, — 
with monasteries and nunneries dotted over the land, — with women 
everywhere kneeling like serfs and slaves at the feet of clergymen, — 
with men casting off all faith, and becoming sceptics, — with schools 
and colleges made seminaries of Jesuitism, — with free thought 
denounced and anathematized, — with all these things the distinctive 
manliness and independence of the British character will gradually 
dwindle, wither, pine away, and be destroyed, and England wall be 
ruined. And all these things, I firmly believe, will come, unless the 
old feeling about the value of Protestantism can be revived. 

I warn all who read this paper, and I warn my fellow-Churchmen 
in particular, that the times require you to awake and be on your 
guard. Bcwnre of Romanism, and beware of any religious teaching 

which, wittingly or unwittingly, paves the way to it. T beseech yon 
to realize the painful fact that the Protestantism of this country is 
gradually ebbing away, and I entreat you, as Christians and patriots, 
to resist the growing tendency to forget the blessings of the English 

For Christ's sake, for the ."^ake of the Church of England, for the 
sake of our country, for the iake of our children, let us not drift 
back to Kouiish ignorance, superstition, priestcraft, and immorality. 
■Our fathers tried Popery long ago, for centuries, and threw it off at 
last with disgust and indignation. Let us not put the clock back 
and return to Egypt. Let us have no peace with Rome till Eome 
abjures her errors, and is at peace with Christ. Till Rome does 
that, the vaunted re-union of Western churches, which some talk of, 
and press upon our notice, is an insult to Christianity 

Read your Bibles and store your minds with Scriptural argu- 
ments. A Bible-reading laity is a nation's surest defence against 
■error. I have no fear for English Protestantism if the English laity 
will only do their duty. Read your Thirty-nine Articles and 
"Jewell's Apology," and see how those neglected documents speak 
of Romish doctrines. We clergymen, I fear, are often sadly to 
blame. We break the first Canon, which bids us preach four times 
every year against the Pope's supremacy ! Too often we behave as 
if giant Pope was dead and buried, and never name him. Too often, 
for fear of giving offence, we neglect to show our people the real 
nature and evil of Popery. 

I entreat my readers, beside the Bible and Articles, to read 
historj', and see what Rome did in days gone by. Read how she 
trampled on your country's liberties, plundered your forefathers' 
pockets, and kept the whole nation ignorant, superstitious, and 
immoral. Read how Archbishop Laud ruined Church and State, 
and brought himself and King Charles to the scaffold by his foolish, 
obstinate, and God-displeasing effort to unprotestautize the Church 
of England. Read how the last Popish King of England, James U, 
lost his crown by his daring attempt to put down Protestantism 
and reintroduce Popery. And do not forget that Rome never 
changes. It is her boast and glory that she is infallible, and always 
the same. 

Read facts, standing out at this minute on the face of the globe, if 
you will not read history, Wliat has made Italy and Sicily what 
they were till very lately ? Popery. — What has made the South 
American States what they are ? Popery. — What has made Spain 
and Portugal what they are ? Fopery. — What has made Ireland 
tvhat she is in Munster, Leinster, and Connaught ? Popery. — 
What makes Scotland, the United States, and our own beloved 
England the powerful, prosperous countries they are, and I pray 
God they may long continue ? I answer, unhesitatingly, Protest- 

83 * 

antism, — a free Bible and the principles of the Eeformation. Oh, 
think twice before you cast aside the principles of the Eeformation ! 
Think twice before you give way to the prevailing tendency to 
favour Popery and go back to Rome. 

The Eeformation found Englishmen steeped in ignorance and 
left them in possession of knowledge, — found them without Bibles 
and placed a Bible in every parish, — found them in darkness and 
left them in comparative light, — found them priest-ridden and left 
them enjoying the liberty which Christ bestows, — found them 
strangers to the blood of atonement, to faith and grace aad real 
holiness, and left them with the key to these things in their hands, — 
found them blind and lett them seeing, — found them slaves and left 
them free. For ever let us thank God for the Eeformation ! It 
lighted a candle which we ought never to allow to be extinguished 
or to burn dim. Surely I have a right to say that the times require 
of us a renewed sense of the evils of Romanism, and of the enormous 
value of the Protestant Eeformation! — Extract from a Sermon 
hy the Hev. Canon Bi/le, entitled, " What do the Times require ? 
Being Thoughts on 1 Ghron. ssii. 32." Published ly Hunt and Co., 
Paternoster Bow. 

To be obtained at the Office of tlie Church Association, i4, Bucltingham Street, Strana, London. 
By Subscribers, for distribution, free. By others at the price of Sd per dozen, or Is Oct per 100. 

66th Thonsand.l 



In the first Pivayer Book of King Edward VI (a.d. 1549) tht 
directions as to the vestui'cs of the ministers officiating in the 
pnblic services of the Church were as follows. In the saying 
and singing of matins and evensong, baptizing and burying, the 
minister was to wear a surplice. In the administration of the Holy 
Communion the Rubric was as follows : — 

"Upon the day, and at the time appointed for the ministration of the Holy 
Communion, the Priest, that shall execute the Holy ministry, shall put upon him 
the vesture appointed for that ministi-ation, that is to say : a white Albe, plain, 
•with a vestment or Cope. And where there may be many Priests or Deacons, 
there so many shall be ready to help the Priest in the ministration, as shall be 
requisite ; and shall have upon them likewise the vestures appointed for their 
ministry, that is to say, Albes with Tunicles." 

These directions were omitted from the Second Book of King 
Edward (1552) ; and instead of them, a Rubric was inserted, 
immediately before the order for morning prayer, in these words : — 

" And here it is to be noted, that the minister, at the time of the Communion, 
and at all other times in his ministration, shall use neither alb, vestment, nor 
cope ; but . . . being a priest or deacon, he shall have and wear a surplice 

The Prayer Book of Elizabeth (a.d. 1559) provided that 

" The Minister at the time of the Communion, and at all other times of his 
ministration, shall use such ornaments in the church as were in use by authority 
of Parliament in the second year of the reign of King Edward VI, according to 
the Act of Parliament set in tne beginning of this Book." 

The Act of Parliament therein referred to was Queen Elizabeth's 
Act of Uniformity, 1 Eliz. c. 2, and the 25th Clause of that Act 
contains the following proviso : — 

" Provided always and be it enacted, than such ornaments of the church end 
the ministers thereof shall be retained and be in use as was in this Church of 
England, by authority of Parliament, in the second year of the reign of King 
Edward the VI, uniil other order shall be therein taken by the authority of the 
Queen's Majesty, with the advice of her Commissioners appointed and authorized 
under the great seal of England for causes ecclesiastical, or of the Metropolitan of 
this realm " — {Act of Uniformity, Litwrg. Services, Eliz. p. 32, P.S.) 


The Prayer Book, therefore, refers to the Act, and the Act 
clearly contemplated further directions to be given by the Queen, 
with the advice of Commissioners or of the Metropolitan. 

The Queen, with the authority required, did take " other order " 
by means of " The Advertisements " of 156'i-5, the effect of which 
was to limit the cope to cathedral and collegiate churches, while the 
surplice was enjoined in parish churches. They make order for 
the vesture of the Minister in these words — 

Item. In the ministration of the Holy Communion in cathedral and collegiate 
churches, the principal minister shall use a cope with gospeller and epistoller 
agreeably ; and at all other prayers to be said at that communion table, to use no 
copes but surplices. * * * 

'■ Item. That every minister saying any public prayers, or ministering the 
sacraments ov other rites of the Church, shall wear a comely surplice with sleeves, 
to be provided at the charge of the pai-ish. "—CarcfweZl, Doc. Ann. 

Thei-e is no doubt that the Advertisements were carried into 
effect as legall)'' binding, and were enforced by Royal Commissions ; 
and their authority is expressly recognized by the Twenty -foui'th 
Canon of 1G03-4. 

Tlip Visitation Articles of the Archbishops and Bishops about 
this time, show that the operation of the Advertisements had been 
i-apid and complete. 

Archbishop Grindal, in 1571, inquires " whether all Vestments, 
Albs, Tunicles, stoles, phanons, pixes, paxes, hand-bells, sacring- 
bells, censers, crismatories, crosses, candlesticks, holy water stocks, 
images, and such other reliques and monuments of superstition and 
idolatrie be utterly defaced, broken, and destroyed " (Rit. Com., 
2ud Rep. Appx. p. 408). 

Archbishop ParJcer, in 1575, asks " in the time of celebration of 
Divine service whether they wear Surplices " (Rit. Com., 2nd Rep, 
.Appx. p. 416). 

Ayhner, Bishop of London^, uses the same form of question as 
Archbishop Grindal (Ibid., p. 418 &). 

/S^o??f?i/.<f, Archbishop of Yorh, inquired, in 1578, "whether your 
Parson, Vicar, or Curate, at all times in saying the Common Prayer 
upon Sunday and holidays, and in administering of the Sacrament, 
doth use and retain the Surplice, yea or nay " (Ibid, p. 422 a). 

The Canons of 1(303-4, enacted by both Convocations, and ratified 
by the King's consent, provide specially for the vesture of the 

Canon 24 directs the use of " a decent Cope " for the principal 
Minister in the Holy Communion in Cathedrals and Collegiate 
Chuixjhes, " according to the advertisements publishocJ Anno 7 
Miz.:" the following is the direction contained in the Cauou : — 

" lu all cathedral and collegiate churches, the holy communion shall be adminis- 
tered upon principal feast-dnys, sometimes by the bishop, if he be present, and 
sometimes by the dean, and at some times by a canon or prebendary, the principal 
minister using a decent cope, and being assisted with the gospeller and epistler 
agreeably, according to the adveiitisements published Anno 7 Eliz." 

Canon 58 directs that 

" Every minister saying the public prayers, or ministering the sacraments or 
other rites of the church, shall wear a decent and comely surplice with sleeves, to 
be provided at the charge of the parish. And if any question arise tonching the 
matter, decency, or comeliness thereof, the same shall be decided by the discretion 
of the ordinary." 

In 1GG2, after the vestments had been disused by authority for 
more than 100 years, the rubric was revised so as to read as follows, 
and as thus revised it now remains : — 

" And here it is to be noted that such ornaments of the church and of the 
ministers thereof, at all times of their ministration, shall be retained and be in 
use, as were in this Church of England by the authority of Parliament in the 
second year of the reign of King Edward the Sixth." 

In 16G2 the Puritans pleaded for giving up the use of the 
surplice ; the other party declined to allow it ; and then the words, 
•'shall be retained," were introduced into the Rubric. On the 
significance of this change Sir R. Palmer, the present Lord 
Chancellor, wrote in 1866 : — 

"An enactment that certain things 'shall be retained and be in use,' naturally 
implies that the former state of things is so far to be continued ; not that a new 
state of things is to be then introduced, or (what amounts to the same) that an old 
state of things long before prohibited by law, and also disused in practice, is for 
the future to be revived and brought into use again." 

It is possible to " retain " what we have ; but it is not possible to 
" retain " what had been abolished one hundred years before. Nor 
was it possible by the use of such words as " here it is to be 
noted " in a rubric legally to restore what had been authoritatively 
abolished. An Act of Parliament alone cou.ld have accomplished 

No doubt can be entertained that for nearly two centuries 
following 1662 the public acts of the Bishops and Clergy of the 
Church, and of all other official persons, were inconsistent with the 
supposition that the Rubric of 1662 had made any change in the 
law. It was not disputed by the counsel engaged in the case, that 
the subsequent practice in parish churches, until about 1840, was 
Tiniformly consistent with this view. 

Tu 1m' (ibtaiiiiil at the Office of the Church Association, 14, Buckingham Street, Strand, 
Loudiju. IJy Subscribers, for distribution, free. By others at 3d perdoz. or Is Od per 100. 
12th Thousand.] 

liTo. CXLIX. 



JUDGMENT of the Loeds of the Judicial Committee of the 
Peivt Council, on the Appeal of MAESTERS v. DUEST, 
from the Court of Arches ; delivered 11th July, 1876. 

Present : — The Lord Chancellor (Cairns), Lord Hatherlet, Lord 
Penzance, .'*ir Barnes Peacock, and Sir Montague Smith. 

This is a criminal suit promoted in the Court of Arches against the Appellant 
who is one of the Churchwardens of the Parish of St. Margaret, in the Borough 
of King's Lynn, for having removed from the church, without a faculty, a certain 
moveable cross of wood which had been placed on a ledge called a " re-table," at 
the back of and above the Communion Table. 

The Respondent is the Vicar of the parish, and the cross was placed there by 
his authoritj', but without the sanction of a faculty. 

In the Court below exception was taken to certain passages in the responsire 
allegation filed by the Appellant, and they were ordered to be struck out. 

The present Appeal is in form an Appeal from that Order, but on the case being 
opened it appeared to the parties that, as the facts were not really in dispute, it 
would save both expense and delay if they agreed to a statement of fact in the 
form of a Special Case, and took the decision of the Court of Arches upon the 
merits of the case. 

Their Lordships consented to that course being pursued, and the case has been 
fully argued upon the Special Case so stated. 

The question which their Lordsliips are thus called upon to decide is the single 
one of the legality of a cross of this description in the place which it occupied 
when the Appellant removed it from the church. 

The Special Case states that the cross is above three feet in height ; that it is a 
moveable one ; that it was placed by the Respondent's orders on a structure of 
wood called a " re-table," consisting of a wooden ledge at the back of the Com- 
munion Table, having a front of wood about eight inches deep, coming down to 
within five-sixteenths of an inch of the sui-face of the Communion Table, and that 
this structure is fixed to the wall by nails. 

A photograph is appended to the Special Case, from which, and the statements 
in this case, it is plain that the Communion Table and the " re-table " would at a 
Tery short distance bear the appearance of one entire table or structure. 

It is further stated that the cross was placed on this ledge with " the intention 
that it should remain there permanently." 

On the part of the Respondent it was contended that the cross was a moveable 
one, and constituted part of the church furniture ; that it was not one of the 
" ornamental instruments" used in the church services ; and that it fell within the 
category of things " inert," which were mere architectural decorations. 

On the part of the Appellant it was contended, among other things, that the 

case fell within the principle of the well-known decision in the cases of Liddell v. 
Westerton, and Liddell v. Beal ; and as their Lordships are ot that opinion, it will 
not be necessary to go again into the subject at large, or do more on the present 
occasion than point out what it was that those cases really decided, and give 
reasons for the conclusion that the present case cannot in principle be distinguished 
from them. 

The two cases in question concerned the Church of St. Paul and the Chapel of 
St. Barnabas. In both instances there had been placed on the Communion Table 
a cross, and in both instances these crosses were held to be illegal. It is important 
therefore to consider what the character of these crosses was, and on what grounds 
tliey were ordered to be removed. In the Chapel-of-ease of St. Barnabas the 
things complained of were first a rood-screen and a cross thereon, which cross was 
held to be lawful ; and secondly, "a stone table or altar with a metal cross 
attached thereto," and this cross was held to be unlawful. 

The cross complained of in the Church of St. Paul was attached to the Com- 
munion Table, and is thus described in the Judgment at page 2 : — 

" Their Lordships understand that this Table, described as an Altar or Com- 
" munion Table, is made of wood, and is not attached to the platform but merely 
" stands upon it ; that it is placed at the east end of the church or the chancel, 
" according to the ordinary usage as to Communion Tables ; that at the end 
" nearest the wall there is a narrow ledge raised above the rest of the Table ; that 
'* upon this ledge which is termed ' super-altare,' stand the two gilded candlesticks, 
" which are moveable, and between them the wooden cross which is let into and 
" fixed in the super-altare so as to form part of what is thus described as the Altar 
*' or Communion Table." 

It will be observed that this description closely tallies with the description as 
given in the special case of the Communion Table in the present case. There is 
here, as there, a moveable table, and a ledge of wood raised above the table at the 
back of it, and on this ledge two candlesticks, and a cross between them. The 
differences are that in St. Paul's Church the ledge of wood was called a " super- 
altare," while in this case it is called a "re-table" ; in St. Paul's Church the ledge 
stood upon the table, while in this case it is fixed to the wall and does not quite 
touch the table, being separated by about a quarter of an inch from it ; and finally, 
that in St. Paul's Church the cross was " let into and fixed" in the ledge, while in 
the present case it was not fixed but placed on the ledge " with the intention that 
it should remain there permanently." 

It is upon these differences of structure that the Respondent relies, and he points 
particular attention to a passage in the Judgment relating to the cross in St. Paul's 
Church, which is as follows : — 

" Next with respect to the wooden cross attached to the Communion Table at 
" St. Paul's. Their Lordships have already declared their opinion that the Com- 
" munion Table intended by the Canon was a table in the ordinary sense of the 
" word, flat and moveable, capable of being covered with a cloth, at which or 
•' around which the communicants might be placed in order to partake of the Lord's 
" Supper ; and the question is whether the existence of a cross attached to the table 
" is consistent either with the spirit or with the letter of those regulations. Their 
" Lordships are clearly of opinion that it is not ; and they must recommend that 
" upon this point also the decree complained of should be affirmed." 

It is argued by the Eespondent that their Lordships must have intended to hav* 

condemned only crosses which were " fixed" to a ledge standing on the Com- 
munion Table or to the Communion Table itself, and that the two circumstances in 
the present case, of the ledge being a quarter of an inch above the Table, and the 
cross not fixed in the ledge but moveable, are suiHcient to take it out of the principle 
of that Judgment. 

Their Lordships are unable to accept or approve so narrow and limited a view of 
the conclusion arrived at in those important cases. 

It is hardly to be conceived that a distinction should have been intended to be 
drawn between a cross "attached" to the Table (or the ledge above the Table) 
and a cross occupying a "permanent" position upon it; and still less that the 
lawfulness or unlawfulness of the cross should be declared to reside in such a 

Upon such a view of the law, further refinements would be inevitable ; for, on 
the one hand, a cross might be " let into and fixed " in the " re-table " in such a 
manner as to be easily removed if and when desired, and therefore practically 
moveable ; and, on the other hand, it might be ponderous, not easily moved, and 
intended to remain permanently in its place, and yet not actually "fixed" in the 
sense of being fastened to the ledge or table on which it stands. 

To hold that such refined differences as these constitute the distinction between 
what is lawful and what forbidden by the law would be to give every importance 
to matters which are trivial and incidental, to the exclusion of those which are sub- 
stantial and of serious import. 

To any stranger entering the church, the present structure is not perceptibly dif- 
ferent from that which was presented to the eye in the Church of St. Paul. The 
flat table, the narrow ledge rising above it, the candlestick at either end of this 
ledge, and the cross in the middle, constitute the apparent structure in both cases. 
It would be only by a minute inspection, instituted close at hand, that any 
difference would be revealed between them. For those who attend the services in 
this church, therefore, these differences do not practically exist, and whatever 
objection attended the Communion Table with its cross in the case of St. Paul's 
Church is equally present here. 

When the Judgment in the above cases is carefully considered, it is very apparent 
what that objection was ; and why the crosses on the Altar and the Communion 
Table in both cases were declared unlawful. 

Speaking of the Altar in St. Barnabas, their Lordships said, " the question was 
"whether the structure was a Communion Table within the meaning of the law," 
and with respect to St. Paul's, " whether the existence of a cross attached to the 
" table is consistent either with the letter or the spirit " of the regulations made by 

To answer these questions their Lordships inquired at length into the character 
and appearance of the Roman Catholic altar as it existed before the Reformation 
— the doctrines respecting the Holy Communion which that altar was designed to 
Bubserve, And to which it was intended to conform — the change in these doctrines 
which was effected by the Reformation, and the consequent substitution of the plain 
flat moveable table of wood for the fixed altar with its super-altare, its crucifix, 
and candlesticks at either end. 

It was upon a careful review of these facts and considerations, and not upon any 
refined distinction as to the mode in which the cross was connected with the table, 
that their Lordsliips, construing the legal regulations bearing on the subject, came 


to the conclusion tliat a Communion Table such as that in the Church of St. Paul, 
was not warranted by those regulations : and their decision, therefore, applies to 
and governs the present case, in which the structure complained of is, their Lord- 
ships think, in no substantial or essential feature distinguishable from it. 

Some additional light is thrown on the meaning and intention of the Judgment 
above discussed by the subsequent proceedings in one of the cases (Liddell v. Beal) 
to which that Judgment gave rise. 

It was thought by Mr. Beal that the monition of the Court for the removal of 
the cross in the Chapel of St. Barnabas had not been complied with by removing 
the cross from the Altar and placing it on the sill of the great eastern window 
of the church, immediately above the Communion Table, though at a distance of 
five feet from it, and he instituted proceedings complaining of this as an evasion. 

Their Lordships thought differently, and expressed themselves as follows : — 

" Now there was formerly a cross which stood upon the stone table, and was in a 
" sense at least affixed to it, which was objected to, and, as it appears, properly 
" objected to. The stone table has been altogether removed, and with it the cross, 
" but the cross has been placed in another part of the church, not in any sense upon 
" the table which has been substituted for the stone table, nor in any sense in 
•' communication, or contact, or connection with it. It remains in the church as an 
" ornament of the church . , . and does not conflict with the order contained 
" in this monition." 

It will here be observed that no stress is laid on the fact that the cross was no 
longer alleged to be " fixed," which, if the Respondent's view of the principal deci- 
sion were correct, would at once have determined the question; but the retention of 
the cross in its new position is justified upon the ground that it was not "in any 
" sense upon the table, nor in any sense in communication or contact or connection 
" with it." 

It is plain, therefore, that in the decision of the principal case, it was not to the 
cross itself that any objection was made, nor to the particular means or fastenings 
by which it was retained in its place, but to its connection with the Communion 
Table ; and if, instead of removing the cross to a place several feet above the table, 
and quite unconnected with it, Mr. Liddell had simply made the cross a moveable 
one, and fixed a re-table to the wall (such as in the pi-esent case) for it to stand 
upon, it is inconsistent with the language just quoted to suppose that theii- Lord- 
ships would have held the monition to have been complied with. 

Their Lordships are therefore of opinion that the cross in the position which it 
occupied while in the church is forbidden by law ; and they will advise Her Majesty 
iliat the present suit should be dismissed ; but, as both parties have been in the 
wrong in acting without a faculty, without costs. 

1 P. D. 373. 

To be obtained at the Office of the Church Association, 14, Buckingham Street, Strand, London. 
By Subscribers, for distribution, free. By others at the price of 3d per dozen, or Is M per 100. 
18th. Thousand.] 

No. CL. 

Proposal by the Chairman of the English Church 
Union to bring back the Liturgy of 1549. 


At the Church Congress at Derby, ]\Ir. Beresford Hope read 
a paper on " Tlie ideal of Liturgical Worship in the Church of 
England," in the course of which he strongly advocated the 
adoption of ornamental accessories to the service. 

The Hon. C L. WOOD, President of the English Church Union, 
as a liturgical improvement advocated the alternative use of the 
Prayer Book of Edward VI, which he contended was in many 
respects far richer, and more calculated to place in its true 
sublime light the doctrine of the Holy Eucharist, than the existing 
meagre Prayer Book. In the case of the Burial Service the Prayer 
Book of EdAvard VI, he urged, had the advantage, because it 
afforded intercession for the dead, that they might rest in peace 
and have more. 

The Rev. Canon HOARE promptly and boldly took up the 
vindication of the Evangelicals and their forms of worship, observ- 
ing at the outset : His Lordship has called upon me before my time. 
I am prepared if you think it right, but at the same time, I may 
just add that I am called upon by surprise. I expected to have to 
discuss the suggestions of litui-gical improvements likely to be made 
by Mr. Venables. At the same time, I can accept the call as from 
the providence of God. I think that this debate is a most important 
one for the Church of England. I think the speech to which we 
have just listened is one of the most important speeches I have ever 
heard at a Church Congress. We used to be told that we old- 
fashioned Evangelicals were but poor Churchmen. We used to be 
told that what was originally called the Tractarian movement, and 
has since been called the Ritualistic movement, was an effort of 
pious and devoted men to rise above our poor Churchmanship, and 
to bring out in better development the true principles of the Church 
of England. We always, with the happiness which accompanies a 
clear conscience, maintained that we were the true representatives 
of the Church of England. We acted upon its principles and taught 
its truth. But still we have borne a certain amount of reproach, 
and have not been able to get over the old prejudices. But this 
day we have been told by the President of the English Church 
Union, that our beautiful English service is meagre, that there is 
nothing more meagre than our existing Liturgy, that our Com- 
munion service in which we have delighted is a mutilated, inferior, 
defective service altogether. This great assembly has heard what 
has been said by INIr. Wood. We have been told this day that we 
are to go back to the Liturgy and the office of 1549, instead of 
accepting that of 1552, revised afterwards in 16G2. And now just 
look for one moment at the first Liturgy of Edward VI. We are 

told tliat ours is a falling off from tlie use of Sarum. We are 
therefore to look iipou the use of Sarum — the old Popish Liturgy 
— the old Popish Liturgy existing- in the Diocese of Salisbury, as 
being' the best. To this the Reformers applied the pruning-knife. 
I cannot say that they left much of the office of Sarum. There 
were certain fine passages, but they brought out a . Protestant 
Communion office in 1549. But still there were certain defects left, 
but as they went on they saw more and more of the truth of God. 
They said the thing must be done thoroughly. It is no use carrying- 
out mere half-measures. And the Reformers, thank God, could not 
stop at the First Book of Edward, and I am very much disposed to 
think that if Mr. Wood gets it he won't stop there either. And 
now that we have enjoyed it for three centuries we are told to hark 
back again. Of this I am persuaded, that true Churchmen have 
no desire to return. You must just consider what Mr. Beresford- 
Hope has told us. He and I have sparred about this before now. 
But Mr. Beresford-Hope knows as well as I do that there is no 
such thing as an altar in the English Church. And I will tell you 
also what Mr. Wood and his friends know very well. They know 
very well that if they can coax us back those three years, to 1549, 
to the First Book, that there they will find an altar, and that is 
why they wish for it. The Reformers knew this, and that an altar 
was essentially connected with a sacrifice. And they knew this, 
that while they were prepared to offer the sacrifice of praise and 
thanksgiving, that the sacrifice of propitiation was completed for 
ever, and they believed also that the doctrine of propitiatory 
sacrifice in the mass was " a blasphemous fable and dangerous 
deceit." Now then, my Lord, we know our ground, and where we 
are to stand. We have learned something- in this Congress. We 
know where we are. We go home to-day knowing with what a 
power and with what an intention we have to contend. We know 
what Mr. Wood has told us. He has told us as plainly as possible 
that the object is to bring back the Church of England from the 
Reformed Church of 1552, to stop a little by the way, just in the 
refreshment-room, of 1549, and then to plunge head-foremost right 
into the use of Sarum. Now, my Lord, what shall we say ? Shall 
we have it or shall we not ? Shall we stick by blessed truths we 
have received and for which our reformers died ? Shall we cling- 
to the dear old office-book in which we have hundreds and 
thousands of times poured out our whole heart before God ? Shall 
we unite heart and soul as witnesses for Christ, coming there to His 
holy table, and holding there communion with Him ? Or shall we 
begin by half-and-half retrograde measures until we go right back 
into the arms of Rome ? My Lord, I need say no more, but I 
thank Mr. Wood for having spoken out, and having- let us know 
this day what are the real intentions of the English Church Union. 
The speech was cheered and applauded at almost every sentence. 

To be obtained at the Office of the Church Association, 14, Bnokiiischam Street, Strand, Loudon. 
By Subscribers, for distribution, free. By others at '2d per dozen, or Is per 100. 

43rd Thousand.] 

No. CLl. 









MEN TO god; 

Offering TO them Means of Grace 



A "Wise Steward"' at His IVlaster's Table 


The "Broken" Loaf <& Outpoured Wine 





And Accepted" 1800 years ago, 





Takes the Head of tlie Supper-Table 



Whom He bids* to the Covenant "Feast" 
of the New Testament, 

And "serves'' (like Ids Lord^) at the 
" Lord's Table:"'^ 






Appeasing God's Wrath by offering FOR 




A Jewish or Heathen Priest 


Tlie 2Iagically re-produced Bodi/'^^d) Vlood^* 








"MASS" to "MASS." 


Turns his back on the Congregation 



Which the Senses disprove: (the 

creature creating his Creator,^* and 

"offering" Him to Himself!) 

Stcutdiug (unlike his Lord^^J at a so- 
called "Altar." 

(* For Scripture references, see other side.) 

1 " We are ambassadors for Christ ... -we pray you in Christ's stead 
be ye reconciled to God." (2 Cor. v-20.) 

2 " The bread which we break is it not the communion of the body of 
Christ." (1 Cor. x-16.) 

3 " Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his Lord shall 
make ruler over his household to give them their portion of meat in due 
season?" (Luke xii-42.) 

4 i.e., Thanksgiving. 

5 " Our Passover also hath heen sacrificed even Christ : ivherefore let us 
keep the Feast." (1 Cor. v-8, revised version.) 

6 " He died unto sin, once." (Rom. vi-10.) " His one oblation of Himself 
once offered [was] a full, perfect, and sufficent sacrifice, oblation, and satis- 
faction for the sins of the whole world." — Prayer Book. 

7 " If when we were enemies, we were reconciled by the death of his 
Son, much more, heimj reconciled we shall be saved by his life." (Eom. v-10.) 

8 " As many as ye shall find, bid." (Matt, xxii-9.) 

9 " ^Vllether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth ? . . . 
but I am among you as he that serveth." (Luke xxii-27.) 

10 " Partakers of the Lord's Table." (1 Cor. x-21.) 

11 Though we or an angel from heaven preach any other Gospel unto you 
than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." (Gal. 
i-6, 8, 9.) 

12 " Thou, on earth, both Priest and Victim 

In the Eucharistic Feast." — Hymns A. & M., No. 316. 

, (" If He were on earth. He should not be a priest." — Heb. viii-4.) 

•' Sacred flesh, and precious blood. 

Thee we ofer, Thee adore," . . . 
" Pleading for the sinful people [Nos. 184,382. 

With the atoning Eucharist." — People's Hymnal, by Dr. Littledale, 

13 " This is my body which is broken for you." (1 Cor. xi-24.) 

u " This is my blood of the new testament which is shed for many for 
the remission of sins." (Matt, xxvi-28.) 

15 " Would they not have ceased to be offered? because the worshippers 
once purged should have had no more conscience of sins." "By one offer- 
ing he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified." (Heb. x-2, 14.) 

16 " If Christ be not raised, your faith is vain ; ye are yet in your sins." 
(1 Cor. xv-17.) 

17 " Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice . . . 
for this he did once, when he offered up himself." (Heb. vii-27.) 

18 "Without contradiction the less is blessed of the better." (Heb. vii-7.) 

19 " Every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the 
same sacrifices, . . . But this Man, after He had offered one sacrifice for 
sins for ever, sat down." (Heb. x-11, 12.) 

To be obtained at the Office of the Church Association, 14, Buckingham Street, Strand, London, 
By Subscribers, for distribution, free. By others at 2d per dozen, or Is per 100. 

14th. Thousand.] 

Ko. CLII. 




— >^ — 

A CORRESPONDENCE has recently been published between Dean 
Oakley, of Manchester, and Prebendary Macdonald, of Kersal 

The correspondence began October 30th by a letter from 
Prebendary Macdonald to Dean Oakley, remonstrating with 
him on the part of the " Manchester Clerical Society " for using 
prayers for the departed — '' a teaching and practice ivhich are 
not those of the Church of England" 

Upon this question issue is joined, and controversy arises. 
Dean Oakley tries to vindicate the practice hitherto unknown 
to the Reformed Church of England, and finally says : 

" Let me add, to tell you my whole mind, that if a sense of justice, e^en to 
him (the late Bishop of Manchester) had not made me say what I didi 
general public policy ivould have made me do so. At this moment I look on 
the pending Liverpool Ritual suit as far more dangerous to the Established 
Church than any of her outer foes. And it is, alas ! greatly due to his 
example — though he himself told me how he deeply regretted it." 

To this Prebendary Macdonald replies : 

" I, too, feel strongly that the greatest danger to the Established Church at 
this moment arises from the conduct of the Ritualistic Clergy, and all that it 
involves, but no candid mind can refuse to acknowledge that the responsibility 
rests ivith those ivho set the laiv at defiance. The painful spectacle which they 
represent to our generation is one that puzzles unsophisticated minds of sense 
and honesty." 

Again : 

" I should not have thought that any advocate of the Ritualistic party 
would care to deny that (as one of themselves, a Canon of the Church in another 
diocese, owned to me a short time since) their object is to bring back the pre- 
Reformation belief and practices, which are distinctly and strongly condemned 
by our Articles." 

To this Dean Oaklet replies on November 7 : 

'• Tou have got to acquiesce in, I do not say to share (that is for your own 
conscience^: but to admit and accept the fact of a very wide-spiread belief that 


tlie old Puritan Tlieology of the IQth and I7th century is practically dead, 
that the old Erastian Protestant theory of the Church of England is dying too 
(though it is dying hard m places), and that the keys of the house have 
PASSED INTO OTHER HANDS. We do not in the least wish to deny you house- 
room. You have a history, and an intelligible and useful place and function in 
the English Church. But you must really be careful and considerate- We do 


needless ; but those xvho differ from you (ii is not one school only) are quite 


AGAIN. You will see that I think it a fit moment for the plainest speaking." 

To ttis Prebendary Macdonald rejoins : 

" Yoa truly say that ' many things have Happened ' since the Archbishop's 
denunciation of the Ritualist ' conspiracy ' ; but nothing has occurred, so far 
as I know, to cast the least doubt upon his painful declaration. All that has 
occurred, whether in the judicial interpretation of the law in repeated decisions, 
given by the highest authority, or in the development of Ritualistic practices 
in the country, has but multiplied the proofs of the conspiracy, and stamped the 
whole movement as one of overt rebellion against the law of the Church. Such 
an attitude maintained before the world is most surely that of disloyalty 

Again : 

" It is well, perhaps, that those who entertain your views and purposes with 
respect to the ' pulling down of our common house,' should speak distinctly 
as you have done ; but you will now admit that your charge against us of 
' fancying that the Church of England belongs to us ' applies not to us but 
elsewhere. We now know who tvould fain possess the power of opening and 
shutting the door, and if we had been uncertain before, we know now where the 
real peril to the National Church is, and ivhere the Liberationists will find 
their ready allies ; for we know that there are Churchmen who are ready to 
assist to disestablish the Church if they cannot succeed to establish their own 
' most sectional ' innovations." 

To be obtained at the Office of the Church Association, 14, Buckingham Street, Strand, London, 
By Subscribers, for distribution, free. By others at 2d per dozen, or Is per 100. 

9th Thousand.] 

, No. CLIII. 


Canon Perry tells ns in Lis " Student's History of England " 
ttat " On January 22, 1561, the Queen issued letters under 
the great seal to her Commissioners," and that the Order thus 
taken was the "other order for which provision was made in the 
Act " of Uniformity. 

Under this commission order was taken by the Royal Com- 
missioners who directed " that there be fixed upon the wall over 
the said communion-board, the tables of God's precepts imprinted 
for that purpose. Provided yet that in Cathedral Churches the 
tables of the said precepts be 0}wre largely and costly painted out, 
to the better show of the same." 

This order was actively enforced in Cathedral Churches. 
In Britten's " History of Bristol Cathedral," p. 52, is a copy of 
the Order, signed by three of the Commissioners in London, to 
the Dean and Chapter of Bristol. 


" After our hearty commendations. Whereas we are credibly 
informed that there are divers tabernacles for images as well in 
the fronture of the rood-loft of the Cathedral Chiirch of Bristol, 
as also in the frontures, back, and ends of the walls where the 
communion table standeth ; forasmuch as the same church should 
be a light and good example to the whole city and diocese, we 
have thought good to direct these our letters unto you, and to 
require you to cause the said tabernacles to be detached and hewn 
down, and afterwards to be made a plain wall, with mortar, 
plaster, or otherways, and some Scripture to be written in the 
I^laces, and namely that upon the wall on the east end of the choir 
ichere the comimmion table usually doth stand, the table of the 
commandments to be painted in lauge chai'acters, with con- 
venient speed, and furniture according to the Orders lately set 
forth by virtue of the Queen's Majesty's Commission for causes 
ecclesiastical, at the cost and charges of the said church ; whereof 
we require you not to fail. And so we bid you farewell. From 
London, the xxi of December 1561." 

This Royal Order being also a statutory order under the Act 

1 Elizabeth, c. 2, still in force, has never been superseded, and is 

applicable, therefore, to St. Paul's, where the idolatrous ' bane ' 

has now supplanted its legal ' antidote.' 

* * 

The scandal thus wantonly occasioned is illustrated by the 

published letter of a " retired rector," entitled " Babylon at St. 

Paul's," in which the winter presses these considerations. 

" And as respects the simplest elements of justice between man and 

man, is there not grievous wrong, is there not palpable injustice and 
oppression, in thus giving over this great National cathedral to the 
Eomanizing manipulation of a knot of Hitualistic conspirators, while 
the sentiments, and principles, and susceptibilities of the great body of 
Protestant Christians are deliberately ignored or wounded to the 
uttermost? Have the genuine Protestant members of the Reformed 
Church of England no rights lohatever ? Have they ceased to have 
any voice or interest in the cathedrals and churches of the land ? 
Are they ruled out of court altogether ? Are Ritualists and Eomanizera 
and sensuous lovers of images the only parties that a Bishop of London 
can recognize as worthy of a moment's thought ? " . . . 

" And what so childish and obsolete as to provide images for the 
teaching of the people in these times, when the power and opportunity 
of reading the ' Oracles of God ' are so universally enjoyed ! The 
Dean of St. Paul's and his subordinates do not compliment very highly 
the education and intelligence of the inhabitants of the Metropolis. 
Or do they think to stay the plague of Infidelity, Agnosticism, 
Secularism, by pictures and images ? Leviathan is not so tamed." 


Bp. Te.mplk is writing to various correspoudeuts that "he can 
see no difference " between the crucifix at St. Paul's and the 
reredos at Exeter. Surely two differences at least would occur 
to any impartial mind. First, that no crucifix whatever existed 
at Exeter ; and second, that at St. Paul's the crucifix is 
brought out in disproportionate size and prominence, so that the 
background does not even modify the effect of the " ancient 
usual " idol with which its worshippers, at Mass, had for 
centuries been familiar. 

The Chxirch Times says : — 

" "We are told that it is no argument against the notion that the 
Second Commandment was a naked prohibition of imitative art 
because the golden cherubims on the Mercy seat were not seen by any 
human eye, except that of the High Priest, on the Day of Atonement. 
It would thus seem to be forgotten that the veil has been rent, and 
that the mysterious seclusion of the Holy of Holies has come to an 

But long before this " rending of the veil," the Cherubim had 
disappeared from the Holy of Holies and the Ark also, and this 
had been predicted by Jeremiah as a part of the Divine educa- 
tion of the Jews into more spiritual conceptions of worship. 
See Jer. iii.-16. 

To be obtained at the Office of the CHUKrn Association, 14, BucUiii.nluiiu Street, Straiut, 
London, W.C. By Subscribers, for distribution, free. By otliers, at '2rf per doz. , or Is per ] 00. 
6Dti Thousand. J 

No. ClilV. 

fling imm'iJ VI. antr fis SItar-f vgljts. 

- > •*• < - 

Ritualists make capital out of the names of well-known 
Protestants (such as Cranmcr, Queen Elizabeth, or King Ed. VI.), 
by bringing forward instances in which, at one time of 
their lives, they adopted some Romish practice. " See," they 
say, triumphantly, " Even your own leaders used these things 
without any squeamishness. Why can't you ? " 

Now it is undoubtedly true that Ed. VI. did issue an In- 
junction which, while it swept away all the other image-lights, 
made an exception in favour of " two lights upon the high altar, 
before the sacrament, which, for the signification that Christ is 
the very true light of the world, they shall suffer to remain 
still." These words, however, were even then merely per- 
missive — as Richard Hilles, in T.542, wrote of the precisely 
similar Injunctions then given by Henry VIII. : — 

" For, I am neither, I told them, a bishop nor a churchwarden; 
nor supposing I held any office of the kind, do these orders enjoin me 
to maintain your lights, but only not tu remove them from the Church, 
which I do not attempt to do." (Orig. Letters, i.-231.) 

But the point to observe is the date of the Injunction, which 
■was issued July 31,1547, just a twelvemonth after the burning alive 
of Anne Askew with three others. (Foxe, V.-550.) On Feb. 10,1547, 
the churchwardens of St. Martin's, London, w^ere ordered to restore 
their crucifix, while the curates were committed to the Tower for 
taking pai't in its removal. (Fronde, iv.-275.) Dr. Harley, after- 
wards Bp. of Hereford, was committed for " heresy " by the Vice- 
Chancellor of Oxford during the following Lent. And on June 
19, 1547, a mass of requiem for the soul of E^rancis I. was sung 
in all the London churches, the Bishops taking part " in their 
richest pontifical habits." (Collier, V.-208.) At that time not 
only were the services in Latin, and the ' seven ' sacraments 
universally administered, but the bloody act of the " Six Articles " 
made a denial of any part of the Romish doctrine punishable 
with Death. The mere accession of the boy-King could not, of 
course, alter the law of the land : and the Council of Regency 
then contained many staunch Papists : so that the continued 
burning of two lights before the host merely testified to the then 
■puhlich/ received doctrine of transubstantiation. Hence in Foxe 
(viii.- 715) we have the case of William Hastlen, the gunner of 
Boulogne, occurring in April, 1547, who, under the " Six Articles 
Act," was asked " How he did believe of the Sacrament of the 
altar ? '' Foxe continues the story : — 

" I asked him whether he meant that that was in the pix, or no ? And 
he said, ' Yea, even that in the pix.' And I said, that since I had 
knowledge of the Scriptures, I did not believe it to be the body of 
Clirist, but a bare piece of bread ; nor by God's help will I ever believe 
it otherwise to be. Then he said, I was a heretic, and asked me what 
I made of the Sacrament : and I said, if it were duly ministered accord- 
ing to Christ's institution, that then I did believe that the faithful 
communicants, i7i receivinq that blessed Sacrament, did receive into 
their inward man or soul, the very body and blood of our Saviour Jesus 
Christ. Then said he, ' Dost thou not believe it to remain the very 
body of Christ after the words of consecration pronounced by the 
priest?' And I said, No." 

" Surely if I had not appealed to tlie Council of England I had 
been burnt in Boulogne ; for it was told me of them that knew much 
in that matter that it was already determined shortly to have been 
accomplished, if I had not appealed : for the which deliverance I give 
praise to the ever-living God." 

But poor Hastlen's escape was due rather to the influence of 
the Protestant Members of the Council of Regency than to the 
actual state of the law. For on April 13th of that same year 
(1 547) a Royal Commission was issued tinder the Six Articles 
Act, followed by a Royal brief to Bonner, Bp. of London, 
and by a similar commission and brief dated April 19th, 1547 
(Foxe, Vol. v., App. No. xx.). We read also of one, Thomas 
Dobbe, " who, in the beginning of this King's reign was 
apprehended and imprisoned for speaking against the idolatry 
of the Mass, and in the same prison died." So too, in the same 
year, John Hume was " apprehended, accused, and sent up to 
the Abp. of Canterbury " by his master and mistress for these 
articles : — 

" I. First, for denying the sacrament (as it was then called) of the 
altar, to be the real flesh and blood of Christ. 

II. For saying that he would never veil his bonnet unto it, to be 
burned therefor. 

III. For saying that if he should hear Mass, he should be damned." 
So real was the terror inspired by these procedings in " the 

first year of King Ed. VI." that, even in November, 1547, 
the Canterbury Convocation was afraid to discuss the reform of 
the service books until the Six Articles Act had been repealed 
(Blunt's Annotated Prayer Book, p. xxi.). That repeal, how- 
ever, was not effected until December 24th, 1547, when the 
Royal assent vv^as given to 1 Ed. VI., c. 12, which not only 
swept away the murderous statute in question, and all the older 
" Heresy Acts " like unto it, but repealed also the " Proclamation 
Act of Henry VIII.," under which a certain authority of Parlia- 
'nient had been conferred upon merely royal Injunctions. Hence, 
during the " second year of Ed. VI.," which began January 
28th, 1548, the Injunctions rested merely upon the Royal 
prerogative, and had no " authority of Parliament." 

The First Prayer Book of Edw^ard did not come into use until 
June 9th in 1549 {i.e. the third year of Ed. VI.), and along 
with it were issued a, fresh set of royal Injunctions (printed by 
Wilkins, Burnet, and Cardwell), and given in our "■ Tract XCI," 
upon " Altar-lights" (p. 8), which prove incontestably that "lights 
upon the altar " ceased with the Mass, and were not recognised or 
perpetuated under the " First Prayer Book of Ed. VI.," which 
most persons (including Mr. James Parker), consider to be the 
" authority of Parliament " referred to in the so-called " Orna- 
ments Rubric." For it is not Christ in Heaven, nor Christ in the 
heart, but Christ on the altar ivithin the sacrament — to be wor- 
shipped as being there, and offered in sacrifice there — " for the 
signification of " whom altar-lights are now being replaced 
" before the sacrament." 

To be "blaiiicd al the OUicc of the Church Association, 14, Buckiiigliam Street. Strand, 
London, W.C. By Subscribers, for distribution, free. By others at Is per 100. 
6th Thousand] 

No. CLV. 


^jj EVERAL correspondents of the Times have hcen 

""^ urging that as Luther made use of altars, crucifixes, 

vestments, liglits, eastward position, &c., and as 

'ptM^^ Luther was (beyond all other men) the typical " Pro- 
*#fT^{«^ testant," no one need object on " Protestant " grounds 
r^*^ to the bringing back all the ritual appai-atus which 
our own English Reformers cast out of the Church of Enghind. 

But Luther has left us in no sort of doubt as to his real 
mind on all these questions. His wise tenderness in educating 
by slow degrees a nation steeped in idolatrous habits was ex- 
plained by himself in a short paper in which (a.d. 1526), speaking 
of the Sunday Service for the laity, he says — " We allow the 
Mass dresses, altar, lights, to remain, until they all disappear, or 
it pleases us to alter them ; but whoever will do otherwise herein 
"we let him. But in the time Mass, among simple Christians, the 
altar must not remain so, and the Priest must always turn to the 
people, as without doubt Christ did in the Supper. Now let 
that wait its time." [Daniel, Codex Liturgicus, ii.-105.] 

Again, he said — " For Christ in his Last Supper, when he was 
instituting this sacrament, and arranging the Testament, did 
not offer Himself to God the Father ; nor did He perform a good 
work on behalf of others, but sitting at a table He jiropounded 
the same Testament to each, and exhibited [its] sign. Now the 
nearer and the more like a modern Mass is to the first Mass of 
all which Christ performed (fecit) at the Supper, so much the 
more Christian is it. But Christ's Mass was m.ost simple, with- 
out any pomp of vestments, chants, and the other ceremonies ; 
where, had it been necessary that it should be offered as a 
sacrifice, would not He have instituted that fully ? " — [Cited in 
Hebert on Lord's Supper, ii.-297.] 

Those are the best and truest followers of the mind of Luther 
■who seek to restore the celebration of Holy Communion to 
its pristine simplicity, abandoning the adulterations of doctrine 
which the so-called "ancient" liturgies (in their existing and 
garbled forms) have unhappily embodied. Daniel, in his Codex 
Liturgicus, ii.-6, says : " Thus in some parts of Germany, 
especially in the provinces of Saxony, many altars face you, not 
contiguous to the wall of the Church, but altogether so arranged 
that the Priest standing at the back of the Altar may celebrate 
all rites toward the congregation." 

But Luther's followers were from the first safe-guarded from 
that bondage to " spiritual " persons which Archdeacon Denison 
is seeking to bring back, not merely by the prominence given to the 
fundamental doctrine of " Justification by (individual) Faith," 
and by the denial of any " Apostolic succession " of priests sup- 
posed to derive their authority from the Apostles iudepeitdently 
of the Church (i.e. the Laity), of which they arc the " Ministers ": 
they were taught by Luther himself to cut at its very root the 


lucrative superstition of " sacrifices for sin." lu his treatise 
„ On the Abrogating of the Private Mass," Luther wrote : — 

" In the New Testament there is no visible and external 
priesthood except that which is erected by Satan through the 
lies of men. Our one and only priesthood is that of Christ, by 
the which He offered Himself for us, and all of us with Him. 
His priesthood is spiritual and common to all Christians. For 
with the same priesthood that Christ hath, are we all priests, 
that is, sons of Christ the High Pi'iest. N^or have we need of 
any other priest and mediator than Christ." " Christ offered 
Himself once, but willed not to be offered over again by any 
ONE, but willed a memorial of His sacrifice to be made." 
[Works, ii.-259, 261, ed. 1546.] Even Luther's quasi-Roman 
doctrine of the " real " (i.e. local) presence diffei-ed from the 
Ritualistic theory (not merely by abolishing the intervention of 
a "priest," and by denying the possibility of any offering of it 
to God in sacrifice, but) by limiting the " presence " to the 
sacramental action. 

" It hath naught of the nature of a sacrament apart from the use 
{extra usum) instituted by Christ, or outside of the action divinely 
instituted. . . . And, inasmuch as apart fi'om that use, the bread in 
the Popish Mass is not distributed, but is either offered up, or shut 
lip, or carried about, or put forward for worship, it is not to be recog- 
nized for a Sacrament, just as also the baptismal water, if employed 
for the baptism of bells, or the cure of leprosy, or offered for worship, 
hath none of the nature {rationeni) of a sacrament." [Formula Con- 
cordiae, sec. 84.] 

It is clear then that our monitors who advise us to conform 
to the example of Luther, do not realise what that example 
involves. Luther's disciples were groping their way out of 
Popery into the noonday light of the Gospel which at first 
dazzled their unaccustomed eyes. As Bp. Fitzgerald remarks, 
" the same concessions to Romish taste which were safely made 
in the early part of Edward VI. 's reign, when the ruling 
tendency was towards Protestantism, and the object was to 
carry on the mass of the people in that direction, were pregnant 
with danger in Charles I.'s, when the current was running all 
the other way. It is one thing to slacken sail for the sake of a 
tardy companion, when wind and tide are bearing us gallantly 
forward, and quite another to rest upon our oars when the 
elements are conspiring to drive us back," But transitional 
changes, however salutary at one time, become noxious 
when we are in " peril of false brethren " seeking to 
restore priestly rule by means of media3val superstitions which 
place the English layman at the mercy of would-be "Father" 
Confessors claiming to hold " his God in their priestly hand, 
and his wife at their priestly feet." 

To be obtained at tlie Office of the Chdrch Association, 14, Buckingham Street, Strand, 
London, W.C. Price Is per 100. 

6tli Thousand.] 

No. CLVI. 



For wtat reason do you wear a cross ? 

Do you answer, As a symbol of my Christian faith ? 

The cross was the instrument by means of which Satan and 
his servants put the Lord Jesus to death. It is, therefore, a 
symbol of the bruising of the Deliverer's heel — of Satan's hour, 
and the power of darkness. Christ's triumph was finally 
completed on the morning of His Resurrection, for " if Christ 
be not raised, ye are yet in your sins." (1 Cor. xv.-17.) How, 
then, can a cross be a symbol of faith in Christ ? The oross 
was the Roman gibbet, and so long as it continued to be a 
gibbet it was never adopted as an ornament. The earliest 
Christians knew it well as an emblem of idolatry, of all things 
the most opposed to pure religion. It was the mystic Tau 
of the Chaldeans, the symbol of Tamanuz, signed on the 
foreheads of those who were initiated into the mysteries ; 
the " sign of life " of the Egyptians, and the sacred 
symbol of the Druids. " There is hardly a Pagan tribe where 
the cross has not been found." Iv^ow the experience of 
all ages has plainly shown that such symbols, once adopted, 
sooner or later lead to worship. First used as a personal sign, 
they soon creep into churches, and are used in Divine Service as 
material symbols : and in the third stage they become idols. The 
Homily against Peril of Idolatry forbids the use of crosses, 
especially in churches, reckoning them among images and idols, 
which can teach but one thing, the worshipping of images. 

But does not St. Paul say, " Grod forbid that I should glory, 
save in the ei^oss of our Lord Jesus Christ " (Gal. vi.-14) ? He 
does ; but what does he mean by it ? The vicarious atoning 
death of our Lord, not the wooden instrument which inflicted 
it. The early Christians whom he addressed would have 
scorned this latter interpretation. They had come out of 
idolatry, and they knew better than to go back to it disguised 
as Christianity. 

But perhaps you say, Oh, I do not wear a cross for any such 
reason, but merely because it is a pretty ornament, and I see 
others wearing it. 


Is it a pretty ornament ? or is it, if you pause to thinlc, a 
revolting and disgusting one ? Would you wear a gibbet or a 
guillotine, as an ornament ? Yet the cross was simply the 
Jioman gibbet. What sick woman restored to health by a 
surgical operation would dream of wearing a brooch made after 
the pattern of the doctor's instruments ? If a dear friend 
had been murdered by a rifle-shot, would it seem to you a pretty 
and affectionate idea to wear a little golden rifle or bullet for his 
sake ? Would you not rather be disposed to shudder at the 
sight of the weapon ? And if your friend had died jor you, and 
had deliberately sacrificed his life to preserve yours, would you 
be more or less inclined to raake an ornament of that instrument 
of his destruction ? 

Then what shall we say of floral crosses — are not they lovely 
and innocent things ? Ah, the cross on which Christ suffered 
was not one of flowers ! Do not crosses of flowers and gold 
tend to hide the remembrance of the shame which He despised, 
and the suffering which He endured for us ? And is it meet 
that the Table of the Lord should be degraded into a flower- 
stand, and Divine Service itself made a flower show ? Flowers 
are no meet offering for fallen man. It was Cain who brought 
the fruits of the earth as his offering ; and they were not 

Lastly, we would ask all wearers of ornamental crosses, from 
whatever cause, is that on which Christ died as a sacrifice for 
sin, a fit object to be made an ornament for that outward 
adorning which St. Peter condemns ? 

' Shall I call this glittering gem 

Made for show and vanity — 

Shall I call this gaud a cross — 

Cross of Him who died for me ? 
Shall I deck 7?i?/seZ/ with thee, 
Awful cross of Calvary ?" 

Every '"'hristian is indeed called to bear his cross after 
Christ ; K>ut such crosses are not made of gems and gold. They 
are borne in the inmost heart, and are often visible only to the 
Eyos which are as a flame of fire. In this sense, but in this 
only, is the precept given, "Come, take up the cross, and 
follow Me." 

To be obtained at the Office of the Church Association, 14, Buckingham Street, Straua, 
London, at the juice of 2d per dozen, or Is per 100. 

6tli Thousand.] 

No. LLVIl. 


At the thirtieth anniversary of the E.C.U. (on June 27th, 1889) 
its President advei-ted naturally enouo^h to the prosecution of their 
Vice-President, the Bp. of Lincoln. He gratefully acknowledged 
the support given to the Ritualists by " the very generous article 
by Mr. Sydney Gedge," as proving that " an agreement on the 
basis of such mutual explanations would not be difficult." The 
following extracts are taken from the Church Times and Church 
Bevieiv : — 

Meaning of Ritualism, — "The Catholic revival having been so 
largely concerned with the doctrine of the Ecal Presence — a doctrine 
which necessarilyaffects the character of public ^vorship, how inevitable 
it was, since outivard arts attract so much more ffeneral attention than 
coords spoken or toritten, that a contest, if contest there was to be, should 
take the form of a contest about ritual. At the present moment the 
attempt to forbid lights, the mixed chalice, the Eastward Position, 
the taking of the ablutions, the singing the Agnus, and the use of the 
sign of the Cross in the Celebration of Holy Communion, are an 
illustration of what I say. Everyone knows that these observances 
are attacked on account of their connexion with doctrine, because they 
symbolise the identity in all essentials of our present Communion office 
in EnfiUsh tvith the old Communion office of the English Church as it 
used to be said in Latin, and that they cannot be coudemncd by a 
competent spiritual authority without to that extent at least, and in 
poi)u]ar estimation, aifecting the claim [sic'] of our present Eucharistic 
office to be what the First Prayer Book of Edward VI. calls it, the 
Mass in English. The attack is on ritual, but the object struck at 
is the doctrine of the Eeal Presence and the Eucharistic sacrifice. 

"What has the Church to do with Acts of Parliament, Eoyal 
Injunctions, and the acts of Commissioners appointed by the Crown ? 
What is it to us that Bishop Eidley, without a shadow of legal pre- 
tence, should have broken down the Altars in St. Paul's, and that 
other Bishops should have followed his evil example? What is it to 
us that our churches were despoiled of their sacred vessels and orna- 
ments by the rapacity of a king and his council, whose real motive 
for such sacrilege is best exemplified by the fact that, as Canon Dixon 
tells us, they took even the money they could find in the alms-boxes ? 
What is it to us that adversaries such as these should have made 
havoc of the houses of God in the land, and broken down the carved 
work of the sanctuary with axes and hammers? Are such examples 
to be cited as precedents why the figures of our Loi'd on the Cross and 
of His blessed Mother are to be torn down from above the Altar at 
St. Paul's ? What indeed has the Church to do with such alleged 
reasons except to repudiate and ignore them ? " 

Priests v. Parliaments. — "If Acts of Parliament, or secular 
tribunals interfere with the Church's doctrine and ritual, such 
interference ^\l be disregarded in the future as it has been disregarded 
in the past. We have repudiated all such interference, whether it comes 
directly fi-om Parliament and the Courtsthemselves, or indirectly from 
a bishop who makes himself the mouthpiece of the secular authority." . . 

Canon Law Binding. — " He believed that the Act of the 2oth 
year of Henry VIII. had never been repealed, by which it became 
law that all Canon Law, save where it was contrariant to the laws of 
this realm, should remain in use and authority, and for pleading in 
the Courts. That right had on various occasions been exercised. 
And there coidd be no question whether, with such tradition being 
the legitimate inheritance of the Church, it was not within tlie power 
of the bishop of a diocese, if he thouyht right, to revive it, or to 


encout'age the priests ivithin his diocese to revive it. It seemed to him 
that in vievr of the possibility of such an occasion as this, the very 
preface of the Prayer Book was prepared." "The okl constitutions 
that Mass shall not be said without two. or at least one light, are part 
of the old unrepealed Canon Law." . . . 

The Mass.—" What is the Communion Office but the Mass in Eng- 
lish, with a re-arrangement of its parts in order to emphasise the duty of 
frequent Communion as part of that return to primitive practice, which 
in this respect the Council of Trent, no less than the English Reformers, 
was anxious to see carried out? But, in truth, it is useless to discixss such 
a question before a meeting of Churchmen. If the Church of England 
so separated herself from the past in the sixteenth century, that the 
presumption is against her having retained anything belonging to that 
past except what is specifically mentioned in some existing formularif 
or rubric, then I would ask what claim has she to be the old Church 
of England at all.^ What right has she. except a Parliamentary 
one, to her endowments? What claim has she to our spiritual 
allegiance ? " . . . 

Abp. Benson's Position. — " The bishop's protest makes it clear 
that no ecclesiastical censure of a bishojj by the Metropolitan, with 
all the consequences such a censure would involve, could he considered 
as ecclesiastically valid unless sustained by the consent and approval 
of the Synod of the Province. But though acceptance by the Church 
is required to invest even the decisions of Synods, much more the 
decisions of individual bishops, however exalted their position, with 
the_ authority which belongs to a final ecclesiastical sentence, the 
decision which the Archbishop of Canterbury is being called upon to- 
make is a matter of the gravest importance, and under the present 
circumstances of the Church of England, one which, in whatever 
way you look at it, can hardly help raising the most serious anxieties. 
If that decision vindicates the Church's claims as against the Privy 
Council, and asserts the right of the Church of England to her ancient 
ceremonial — what will be the consequences should an appeal be carried 
up to the very court whose decisions will have been reversed?" . . . 

Sinfulness of Toleration. — " What are wo to say, for instance, 
to such statements as those for which the Bishop of Liverpool, 
Canon Fremantle, Archdeacon Farrar, and Archdeacon Lefroy. the 
fuinre Dean of Norwich, to mention four conspicuous examples, have 
recently made themselves responsible ? 

"The ritual prescribed by the Ornaments Eubric is a witness to the 
faith and historical position of the Church of England. Deprive it of 
this character, and yet permit the things which it enjoins, and you 
destroy what constitutes its chief value in our eyes. The insistence 
on the dogmatic principle; and the essential features of a sacramental 
Chui'ch, the maintenance of the faith against heresy, not permission 
to do what we like, and hold what we like, becaiise the Church of 
England does not enforce or condemn any doctrinal system — that is 
our claim to-day, as it was the claim of the great masters in Israel of 
fifty years ago. W^e can never acqinesce in the position, that contra- 
dictory opinions on matters of faith can he legitimately included in the 
same Church. We reject toleration for ourselves as one opinion 
among many, we claim it on the gi-ound that true Catholic belief and 
practice, however much they may have been obscured in popular 
estimation, are the rightful inheritance of the Church of England. 
and as such claim the exclusive allegiance of the faithful members of 
the Church." . . . 

Jo lie obtained attlie Office of the ChurcliAssociation.U, ISuckinglianiStreet, fetiaiul, London. 

Ky Subscribers, for 'listribution , free, by otliere at Id i)er dc>z. or Is per luO. 
6th Thousand.] 

No. CLVni. 


Extract from the Judgment of the Privy Council in the case of 
Clifton V. Ridsdale, delivered on May 12th, 1877. 
!HE rule by which the position of the minister during- the 
celebi'ation of the Holy Communion is to be determined 
must be found in the liubi-ical directions of the Com- 
munion Office in the Prayer Book, there being, as to this mattei', 
nothing in any Statute to control or supplement those directions. 

In examining these directions, their Lordships propose to 
put aside the argument, very much pressed upon them, that the 
proper and only proper position for the Communion Table is in 
the body of the church, or in the middle of the chancel, and 
that it is in a wrong position when placed, at the time of the 
Communion Service, along the east wall. They think this 
argument has no sufficient foundation. No charge is made that 
in the church of the Appellant the Communion Table stood 
where it ouglit not to have stood, and, in the opinion of their 
Lordships, no such charge could have been sustained. 

The Rubric, indeed, contemplates, that the Table may be 
I'emoved at the time of the Holy Communion ; but it does not, 
in terms, require it to be removed. Morning and Evening- 
Prayer are, according to one of the early Rubrics of the Prayer 
Book, to be used in the accustomed place of the church, chapel, 
or chancel. In churches where it is customary to use both the 
chancel and body of the church, or the chancel alone, for 
Morning and Evening Prayer, the direction that the Table shall 
stand " whei'e Morning and Evening- Prayer are appointed to be 
said," is satisfied without moving it. That direction cannot be 
.supposed to mean that the position of the Table is to be deter- 
mined by that of the minister's reading-desk or stall only, the 
service being " used " and " said " by the congregation as to the 
part in it assigned to them, as well as by the minister. The prac- 
tice as to moving- or not moving the Table has varied at different 
times. It was generally, if not alwavs, moved, in the earliei- 
part of the post-Reformation period. When the i-evision of 1662 
took place, and when the present Rubric before the Prayer of 
Consecration was for the first time introduced, it had come to be 
the case that the Table was very seldom removed. The instances 
in which it has been removed may be supposed from that time 
to have become still more rare ; and there arc now few churches 
in the kingdom in which, without a structural reari'angement, 
the Table could be conveniently removed into the body of the 
church. The utmost that can be said is, that the Rubrics are 
to be construed so as to meet either hypothesis. 

Their Lordships have further to observe that the Rul^rics 
assume that, before the Prayer of Consecration is reached, those 
who intend to communicate will have drawn near to the Copi- 
munion Table, wherever it may be placed, so as to concentrajte 
the Communicants near it or round it, and thus enable them to 
witness the ministration more easily than if they had remained 
in their places throughout the church. 

It is proper also to point out that the term " east " or "east- 

86 * 

ward " nowhere occurs in the Rubrics. From the mention that 
is made of the north side, it seems to be supposed that ia all 
churches that expression would represent a uniform position, 
and there is no doubt that from the almost universal eastward 
position of churches in England this would be the case ; but the 
north is the only point of the compass which is actually referred to. 

During several portions of the Communion office the minister 
is directed, either expressly, or by reference or implication, to 
stand at the north side of the Table. Where this is the case, 
their Lordships have no hesitation in saying that whether the 
Table is placed altar-wise along the east wall, or standing 
detached in the chancel or church, it is the duty of the minister 
to stand at the side of the Table which, supposing the church to be 
built in the ordinary eastward position, would be next the north, 
whether that side be a longer or shorter side of the Table. No 
doubt in a certain context the word " side " might be so used as 
to be shown by that context to be contra-distinguished from the 
top, or bottom, at end of a subject of quadrilateral or any other 
figure. But for this purpose a determining context is necessary. 
In the absence of such a context it is accurate, both in scientific 
and in ordinary language, to say that a quadrilateral table has 
four sides. In the Rubrics not only is there no context to 
exclude the application of that term to the shorter as well as the 
longer sides ; but the effect of the context is (as it appeal's to their 
Lordships) just the reverse. The direction is absolute, and has 
reference to one of the points of the compass, which are fixed by 
nature ; the figure and the position of the Table ai-e not fixed either 
by nature or by law; and the purposeof the direction is to regulate, 
not one part or another of the Table, but the position of the 
minister with reference thereto. Under these circumstances, 
it seems extravagant to put on the word " side " a sense more 
limited than its strict and primary one, for the purpose of 
suggesting difficulties in acting upon the rule, which for nearly 
two centuries were never felt in practice, and which would not 
ai'ise if the strict and primary sense were adhered to. 

If it were necessary that there should be extracted fi'om the 
Rubrics a rule governing the position of the minister throughout 
the whole Communion office, where no contrary direction is 
given or necessarily implied, the rule could not, in their Lord- 
ships' opinion, be any other than that laid down in Hebbert v. 
Purchas ; and they entertain no doubt that the position which 
would be required by that rule — a position, namely, in which 
the minister would stand at the north side of the Table, looking 
to the south— is not only lawful, but is that which would, under 
ordinary circumstances, enable the minister, with the greatest 
certainty and convenience, to fulfil the requirements of all the 
Rubrics. The case, however, with which their Lordships have 
to deal is one which may assume the character of a penal charge. 
It might be a penal charge against the present Appellant that he 
has stood, during the Prayer of Consecration, on the west side 
of the Table ; and on the other hand, on a construction of the 
Rubric the opposite of that contended for by the Respondents, a 
penal charge might be maintained against a priest who stood at 

the north side. It is therefore necessary to be well assured, both 
that there is a direction free from ambiguity that the priest 
should stand, diiring this particular Prayer, eithei- at the north 
or at the west side, and also that no other test is supplied by the 
Rubric in question which would be a sufficient and intelligible 
rule for the position, at that part of the service, of the priest. 

Their Loi-dships have therefore to consider the precise word- 
ing of the Rubric preceding the Prayer of Consecration taken in 
connection with the Prayer itself. 

It is to be observed that the Revision in 1662 introduced for 
the first time the breaking of the bread as one of the manual 
acts to be done during the Prayer of Consecration, and that, 
although some of the other manual acts, namely, the taking the 
bread and the cup into the priest's hands, had been mentioned 
in the Rubric of the First Prayer Book of Edward VI, they 
had not been contained in the Second Prayer Book of that 
Sovereign, or in the Prayer Books of Elizabeth or James I. 
The Rubric " That he may with the more readiness and decency 
break the bread before the people," &c., was also new ; and it 
is not impossible that one of the reasons for its introduction may 
have been to meet one of the demands or suggestions of the 
Puritan party, who had proposed a form of service in which the 
priest was to be ordered to break the bread " in the sight of the 
people." * 

Their Lordships are of opinion that the words "before the 
people," coupled with the direction as to the manual acts, are 
meant to be equivalent to '' in the sight of the people." They 
have no doubt that the Rubric requires the manual acts to be so 
done, that, in a reasonable and practical sense, the Communi- 
cants, especially if they are conveniently placed for receiving of 
the Holy Sacrament, as is presupposed in the office, may be 
witnesses of, that is may see them. What is ordered to be done 
before the people, when it is the subject of the sense, not of 
hearing, but of sight, cannot be done before them unless those of 
them who are properly placed for that purpose can see it. It 
was contended that " before the people " meant nothing more 
than " in the church ; " to guard against an anterior and secret 
consecration of the elements. But if the words " before the 
people " were absent, the manual acts, and the rest of the service, 
could not be performed elsewhere than in the church, and in 
that sense coram populo, nor could the Sacrament be distributed 
except in the place and at the time of its consecration : and this 
argument would, therefore, reduce to silence the words "before 
the people," which are an emphatic part of the declaration of 
the purpose for which the preparatory acts are to be done. 
That declaration applies not to the service as a whole, nor to the 
consecration of the elements as a whole, but to the manual 
acts, separately and specifically. 

There is, thei-efore, in the opinion of their Lordships, a rule 
sufficiently intelligible to be derived from the directions which 
are contained in the Rubric as to the acts which are to be per- 

* 4 Hall, Keliq. Liturg. 

formed. The minister is to order the elements " standing before 
the Table : " words which, whether the Table stands " altar- 
wise " along the east wall, or in the body of the church or 
chancel, would be fully satisfied by his standing on the north 
side and looking towards the south ; but which also, in the 
opinion of their Lordships, as the Tables are now usually, and in 
their opinion lawfully, placed, authorize him to do those acts 
standing on the west side and looking towards the east. Beyond 
this and after this there is no specific direction that, during this 
prayer, he is to stand on the west side, or that he is to stand on 
the north side. He must, in the opinion of their Lordships, 
stand so that he may, in good faith, enable the Communicants 
present, or the bulk of them, being properly placed, to see, if 
they wish it, the breaking of the bread, and the performance of 
the other manual acts mentioned. He must not interpose his 
body so as intentionally to defeat the object of the Rubric 
and to prevent this result. It may be difficult in particular 
cases to say exactly whether this rule has been complied with ; 
but where there is good faith the difficulty ought not to be a 
serious one ; and it is, in the opinion of their Lordships, clear 
that a protection was in this respect intended to be thrown 
around the body of the Communicants, which ought to be 
secured to them by an observance of the plain intent of the 



Their Lordships are not prepared to hold that a penal charge 
is established against the Appellant merely by the proof that 
he stood while saying the Prayer of Consecration at the west 
side of the Communion Table, without further evidence that 
the people could not, in the sense in which their Loi'dships 
have used the words, see him break the bread or take the cup 
into his hand, and they will therefore recommend that an altera- 
tion should be made in the Decree in this respect. 

Their Lordships, before leaving this part of the case, think it 
right to observe that they do not consider the Judgment in the 
case of Martin v. Mackonochie to have any mateiial bearing on 
the question now before them. The decision in that case was 
that the Priest must stand during the Prayer of Consecration, 
and not kneel dui-ing a part of it. The correctness of that 
decision has not been, and, as their Lordships think, cannot be, 
questioned. Nothing is more clear throughout the Rubrics of 
the Communion office than that when the priest is intended to 
kneel, an express provision is made on the subject. The con- 
clusion, however, in Martin v. Mackonochie, is expressed, 
perhaps, more broadly than was necessary for the decision. 
What was obviously meant was that the posture of standing- 
was to be continued throughout the whole of the prayer. 
Nothing Avas or could be decided as to the jalace in which the 
priest was to stand, for that question was not raised, and was 
not in any manner argued, in the case. 

Tobp nhUiiiedat the Office of the Church Association, 14, Buckingham Street, Strand, London. 
By Subscribers, for distribution, free. By others, at 3d per doz. or It Grf per 100. 

:4th Thousand.] 

No. CLIX. 

d;t Moth of tbc Cbiircb ^ssorbtian. 

In acceijting the office of a Vice-President, <lie Rev. Canon 
Cliristoplier wrote the following important letter : — 

St. Aldate's Ekctoey, Oxfoed. 
November Wi, 1889. 
Dear Mr. Miller, 

The Church Association is the only Church of England 
Society which has laboured during the last twenty-four years 
in every lawful way to counteract the efforts now being made 
to pervert the teaching of the Chui'ch of England on essential 
points of the Christian faith, and to assimilate her services to 
those of the Chui-ch of Rome. 

This Association has gone steadily on in its faithful course, 
in the midst of misrepresentation and undeserved reproach, 
endeavouring, in dependence on the blessing of the God of 
Truth, to preserve the blessed results of the Reformation to the 
Church of England. 

I regard it as the truest charity to do all we can, in the Name 
of our God, to oppose ciforts to undo the Reformation, and to 
pervert congi-egations from the simplicity of the Gospel. 
Charity should not be exclusively kept for the teachers of 
Romanizing errors. Some charity should be reserved for those 
■who may become their unhappy victims. 

It is surely worth bearing all the misrepresentations and 
reproach poured upon the supporters of the Church Association, 
to help to uphold the " Doctrines, Principles, and Order of the 
Church of England " in every lawful way, and to preserve at 
least some members of our beloved Church from the Ritualistic 
process of gradual preparation for the terrible final plunge of 
perversion to the Church of Rome ! It cost our Refoi iners 
something more than reproach and misrepi'esentation to bring 
about the Reformation. It cannot but cost God's faithful 
servants something to preserve the Reformation by His help at 
this crisis. 

I wish that all true-hearted Evangelical men realized the 
present danger of our Church. If they did, I am sure they 
would not be apathetic, supine, and unfaithful at such a time 
as this. 

The ins]iircd writer of the thirteenth chapter of the first 

Epistle to the Corinthians surely knew what trne charity is; 
hut see how he wrote in the first chapter of his Epistle to 
the Galatians of those who preach " another Gospel " ; and see 
also in the second chapter of that Epistle how he " withstood 
Peter to the face because he was to be blamed." Are the 
Romanizing corrupters of our Church better men than St. 
Peter ? 

I measure the value of the Church Association not so much 
by its success as by its Scriptural objects, and the faith and 
courage of its members in seeking to obtain them. 

The success of Cranmer, Latimer, and Ridley in preserving 
the Reformation they had so well begun, did not seem to be 
veiy great when they were being burnt alive within a quarter 
of a mile of this rectory. Yet we know what great results God 
ultimately gave to their noble self sacrifice for the cause of His 

Let us pray that God may raise up in our Church at this 
crisis men of the brave, faithful spirit of our martyred Re- 
formers, and use them to put to shame the feeble and timid 
Protestantism of the present day. 

Holding the opinions which I have expressed in this letter of 
the faithfulness of the Church Association in labouring in 
every lawful way for the preservation of the blessed results of 
the Reformation in the Church of England, I willingly accept 
the office of a Vice-President, to which the Council have invited 
me, and the reproach wliich is attached to it. 

I pray that the Holy Spirit may fill all the members of the 
Church Association with the faithful charity which He created 
in St. Paul. I pray also that He may move the hearts of many 
more of our loyal fellow-Churchmen to unite heartily with 
them in their difiicult labours for the preservation of the 
faithful Church of England, which was taught of God in the 
riper days of the Reformation to cast out of her Prayer Book 
the world "altar," and with it all the false doctrine Avbich is 
now connected with that word. 

Believe me, dear Mr. Miller, to be 

Very faithfully youi's, 

Alfred M. W. Christophfr. 

To be obtained at the Office of the Church Association, H, Buckingham Street, Strand, 

Loudon, W.C. Price Is per 100. 
8tli Tliousand.] 

No. CLX. 



By the rev. J. B. WADDINGTON, 

Vicar of Low ifoor, Clitheroe, Lancashire ; Author of Gospel Tracts, Catechisms, &c. 

"Look unto ME (a just God and a Saviour), and be ye saved, all the ends 
of the earth." — Isaiah xlv. 22. 

ivw^p-y/HE Religions of the world may be classed as 
follows : — 

I. Looking for Salvation to man (or self). 
II. Looking for Salvation to the Priest, or through 
the Priest. 
HI. Looking for Salvation to CHRIST alone. 

The last is mine. Which is yours ? 

Are you looking to GOD or ')nan for Salvation ? 

Possibly you consider it simply a question of opinions and 
parties, and say that you respect anything that is honestly 
believed. That you think that differences in religion are insig- 
nificant, and for the most part the result of disposition and 

I reply, that if you respect everything that is honestly 
believed, that will include Mormonism, with its false Prophet 
and sensual heaven ; Scepticism, with its tormenting and soul- 
destroying uncertainty ; and Sacerdotalism, with its priestly 
tyranny and polluting confessional ! I can respect any con- 
scientious man, biit I cannot promise to respect anythinrj that he 
ma}" "honestly " believe. 

Again, the fact of a thing ^^ seeming insignificant,^' does not 
make it so. Our common experience teaches us that the oppo- 
site is sometimes the case ; and in religion those things Avhich 
to some appear trifling, may be safeguards and defences of A-ital 
truths, and of the supremacy of Christ as the all-sufficient 
Saviour of ruined sinners. 

But the matter is not insignificant. Both priestism and 
unbelief lead the soul from Christ, and the simplicity and peace 
of the Gospel. The one puts the priest and his ministrations in 
the place of Christ and His finished work ; the other man and 
his intellectual and material " progress " in the place of the 

Word of God and the great realities of tlie Etei-iial Woild. A 

leading secularist politician said : — 

" The great object which I and my friends ought ever to bear in mind is 
to endeavour to make rehgion take a secondary place in the Hves of men, so 
that gradually it should be dwarfed in importance. Temporal interests would 
then quietly assume a position which would gradually obscure religious as- 
piration, and mankind would turn their backs decidedly and for ever on the 
Christian system. The Church would become merely a curiosity, and, fi'om 
being a guide to millions of lives, dwarfed down to a chapter in a book." 

The opposite error of the Sacei'dotalist is equally dangerous, 

for it too leads the soul from Christ, as the following, \vi'itten 

by one ■who calls himself " An Anglican Priest," clearly shows : — 

" I know that I am ' born again,' for I am baptized. I know that I am 
strengthened with the Holy Ghost, for I am confirmed. I know that past 
sins are forgiven, because God's priest has said, ' I absolve thee.' I know 
that I have a right to stand here, and the far clearer right to stand at your 
Font and Altar, because God's bishop laid his hands on my head, and said, 
'Receive the Holy Ghost,' ttc." 

The former error was neglect of salvation, but this is in fact 
salvation by tlie priest, through forms and ceremonies ! For 
according to such teaching salvation is to be received from the 
priest, and not direct from Christ ; through priestly pei'for- 
mances, and not through faith. 

Dear Reader, — Let no one deceive you, either with the error 
of the Sadducee or that of the Pharisee. How terrible to make 
a mistake, and to find it out when too late ! The only Guide- 
book to Heaven is the Bible, and the Bible alone (Acts xvii. 11. 
See Ai-t. VI. Prayer Booh), which sets forth Christ Crucified 
as the only way. There we read : 

" Through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins : and by 
Him all that BELIEVE are justitied from all things, from which ye could not 
be justified by the law of Moses." (Acts xiii. 38, 39.) 

Reader, — I exhort you to bring everything to the test of 

God's Book of Truth, and may the Holt Spirit impress 

savingly upon youi" heart (if you are still unsaved) the words of 

the Lord Jesus, spoken just before He offered Himself as the 

complete and only sacrifice for sin : I AM the Way, the Truth. 

AND the Life : no man cometh unto the Father but by ME." 

(John xiv. 6.) 

It has been truly said: "Without the Bible man has failed to find God. 
Beyond the Bible he knows notliing, nor will till the mirror is broken and 
the veil laid aside, and he sees face to face." 

To be obtained at the Otiice of the CnuRCH Association, 14, Buckingham Street, 
Sti-anrl. Loiulon. W.C. at 2a' per dozen, or Is per 100. 
4th Thousand.] 

'No. CLXI. 


By the rev. J. B. WADDINGTON, 

Viccr of Low Moor, Clitheroe, iMiicashire ; Author of Gospel Tracts, Catechisms, Ac. 

'What communion hath Ik'ht with darkness?" — 2 Corinthians vi. 14. 

(1) Has the Holy Spirit enlightened you as to your utteily 
lost and helpless condition as a sinner ? Has He led you to 
trust simply in JESUS as the ONLY PRIEST ? (Heb. x. 14.) 

(2) Has the Holy Spiiut led you from gratitude to Him 
Who obeyed the law, and endured its penalty for you, to offer 
i/otirself, and all that you have, " a living sacrifice, holy, and 
acceptable unto God, Avhich is your reasonable service"? 

(3) Are you bringing up your childi-en in the nurture and 
admonition of the Lord ? Do you diligently instruct them in 
the truth, Avarning them against error, knowing how insidious 
are its attacks, and how susceptible are the young and unwary 
to what appeals to theii- senses ? Above all, are you constantly 
pleading for them at a Thi-one of Grace ? (Isaiah lix. 21.) 

(4) Do you fully realize your position, and your duty as an 
Evangelical Protestant Churchman ? Do you make your 
influence felt as you might in your parish or neighbourhood ? 
Do you rally round and support the Clergy who are faithful 
to Christ ? Do you oppose the introduction or spread of en-or, 
by electing sound men and ti'ue as Churchwardens and Delegates 
to Conferences, and by carefully watching any changes in the 
service, and "the i-estoration of Churches," which too often means 
'' the restoration of Popery"? 

Dear Fellow-Protestants, — Can you say from your hearts 
" We do, and icill contimie to do su, the Lord being our Helper" / 

If " LEVELLING UP" be allowed to continue, the days of 
our beloved Church are numbered. As she is gradually Roman- 
ized, the hearts of her defenders will grow faint, and the cry 
for "LEVELLING DOWN " grow stronger, until disestablish- 
ment and disendowment ensue ; and the once faithful Witness 
to Protestant Truth, lies prostrate at the feet of her old foe, the 

implacable enemy of the "Word of God — the Apostate Clmrcli, 
the doomed " Babylon" of the Apocalypse ! (.See Her. xvii.) 

(5) I ask you most seriotisly. Shall ice compromise the truth of 
God — the truth for which our forefathers tcent to the stake — that 
tre may untie with those vrho are, in fact, traitors to their GOD. 
their Church, and their Country ? 

KO ! FOR EVER. XO : Let ns rather, looking for help \o 
the true Sheph£e1' and Bishop of otir sotils, pi^av, " From all 
false doctiTne, heresy, and schism : from all compromise with 
error; from all smr^nder of the trath of GoD ; fi'om all lack of 
boldness in the defence of the Gospel, and in confessinsr C heist 
before men, and from all conformity to the world. 

May the Goo of Truth deliver ns I" 

The utter impossibility of any honourable and consistent 
union between the loyal and disloyal clergy is shown by the 
unmistakable testimony of the Ritualists themselves. 

In Essays on the Beunion of Christendom, edited by the Rev. F. 
G. Lee, d.C.l., with an Introductory Essay by the Bee. E. B. Pusey, 
D.D., the following passages occur on jtage 180 : — 

"The marvel is, that Boman CathoKcs. whatever their views mav be, do 
not see the wisdom of aiding as to the utmost. Admitting that we are bat a 
lay body with no pretensions to the name of a Church, we yet, in our behef 
(however mistaken) that we are one, are doing for England that which they 
caimot do. We are teaching men to beUeve that God is to be worshipped 
under the form of Bread, and they are learning the lesson from us which 
they have refused to leam from the Boman teachers who have been among 
us for the last three hxmdred years. We are teaching men to endure 
willingly the pain of confession, which is an intense trial to the reserved 
Anglo-Saxon nature, and to beUeve that a man's • I absolve thee ' is the 
voice of God. How many English Protestants have Boman priests brought 
to Confe^on, compared with the AngUcan clergy ? Could they have 
overcome the English dislike to ' mummerv ' as we are overcoming it ? On 
tuof hypotibesis, we are DOISG THEIR WOEK.'^ 

The Church Times of March 24th. 1571 : — • We are contending, as our 
adversaries know foil well, for the extirpation of Protestant opinions and 
practices, not merely within the Church itself, but throughout ail England. 
.... WTiat we want is not to force a Close or a McNeile into a Popish 
vestment, but to make Gloees and McNeill as extinct for the future as the 

Protestant Ghtuxhmen, I ask, with aU earnestness — 

Which is it to be. COMPROMISE, and the ruin of our Church? 

or. XO ."^URREXDER. and her preservation as a Witness to 

the Truth of Gk)D, as contained in His Holy "Word ? 


T: r-r ':5.;r:^i at the Office of the Chtech A^ociAXioy, 14, Bnckingham Street, 
Str&r:::, L.nacn, W.C., at 2d pet dozen, or Is per 100. 

Ko. CLxrr. 



VitmrtfLamibmr.aiemm. TmrnrtiAire ; Amemr«fGmpdTwmetM,CiKtii\itmi,SK. 

'Bj one «^«'*™g He ha& pfffrrtgd far ever thr— -Ji^: irr i^nedfied.'' — 
Hdsevs X. 11, li. 1^ 

I. The Teaching of Ritnalisin, 

(1) In zhe Liz^li 'Jmce Bcok we read as follows : — 

" DETonoys fls Mass. Yoa are ooming vracy near to Chust, 
for He will be on that Altar. So soon as the priest has said the 
prayer of consecratioii, the Goi' Max. Christ Jests, is reallT. 
tmly, and indeed there. And by this I mean jnst what I say. 
that He is present, not by yonr :&uth. but by His own power. 
Jesits is on the Altar as truly and as really as He was upon the 
c-Toss^ or in the mangi^ at Bethlehem. Jescs is on the Altar- as 
truly and as really as He is enthroned in Heaxen." 

•* At the eleratiom cf the Host, 

"I adore Thee, O Body of my Loed Jesus Chkist, once 
crucified for me. and now daily sacrificed on Thine Altars." 

(2) The Altar Manual directs that "^ We should pray to God 
that He may accept the Sacrifice which the Priest, and we, 
throngfa hJTn are about to offer. ... It is the continual pre- 
sentation .... as a sin-offering to obtain pardon- for our 
offences. (We should) worship our Losi>. present in TTis Sacra- 
ment, as we should do if we could see Him bodily." 

(S) TjlA Catechism to be learmt lefore He Chunk Cateekiswi, 
we haTc this question on the Lo&d's Supper, 
" For what other purpose (ordained) ? 

To conrey to us the merits of His Death." 
(4) In A Cateehism am the Luearmatiom^ we hare the question, 
** What are the Tneatis w^hereby we gain union with. Jisirs 
Chsist. and so obtain a personal share in His Intacession and 
all other spritual blessings r 

" By our union with His Church, Ac. 
'■ And how are we united to His Church r 

** By the Sacraments and other ordinances. 
" But does not any power or quality of our own, such as/aiitt, 
unite us to Him r 

•* NO ; not bv itself at least ; " &e. 

(5) In Sacred Songs for Children of the Church in Unglavd : — 
" Now that sacred prayer beginning, See the priest in rapture stand, 

Soon the spotless flesh of Jesus he will hold within his hand. 
Speak no idle word, nor suffer thoughts of lightness to arise; 
For that priest in fear is offering Cheist's Tremendous Sacrifice." 

(6) The Benediction Hymn of Benedictine Monks, Norwich : — 

" Globious Host ! Incarnate Gon ! our hope is all in Thee, 
Bless us, Sweetest Sacrament, set all the sin-bound free. 
Ascend, ye clouds of Incense, breaths of nature's prayer, 
Hidden in the Sacrament, Nature's God is here." 

Such is the teaching of many, who, while eating the bread 
of a Protestant Church, teach doctrines which she renounced 
at the Reformation, and repudiates in the strongest language. 

Let us now turn from darkness to light, and compare, or 
rather contrast, with the above, 

II. The Teaching of the Church of England, 

in which we find the warning given in Homily XXVII. con- 
stantly kept in view: — "We must take heed lest of s, memory it 
be made a Sacrifice." 

(1) In Article XXXI. Of the One Oblation of Chiust finished upon the 
Croxa, we read: — " The Sacrifices of Masses, in the which it was commonly 
said that the priest did offer Christ for the quick and the dead, to have 
remission of pain or guilt, were blasphemous fables and dangerous deceits." 

(2) The Order of the Ministration of the Lord's Supper. 'Note 
at the end respecting kneeling to receive the Bread and Wine. 

(3) Read Articles XXVIII. and XXIX., which plainly teach, as " the judi- 
cious " Hooker wrote, that "The Real Presence of Christ's most Blessed 
Body and Blood is not to be sought for in the Sacrament, but in the worthy 
receiver of the Sacrament." — Eccl. Polity, Book v.. i^p. 0, 7. 

Archbishop Cramner wrote : — "The Blood is not in the Cup, but in the 
receiver." — Parker, Sac. Ed., p. 418. 

Bishop Jewell wrote : — " What father or doctor taught us . . . that Christ's 
Body is in a hundred thousand places at once ? that the Priest should hold 
the JBread over his head, and turn his back to the people ? " — Parker, Soc. Ed. 
Second jMrtioit, p. 990. 

John Wycliffe asked — " How canst thou, O priest, w^ho art but a man, 
make thy Maker ? " 

(4) In the Rubric in The Communion of the Sick, we read: — 
.... " He (who " truly repents " and " stedfastly believes ") doth eat and 

drink the Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ profitably to his soul's 
health, although he do not receive the Sacrament with his mouth." 

(5) In Article XL, Of the Justification of Man, we read : — 

" We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord 
and Saviour Jesus Christ, by Faith, and not for our own works or deservings : 
Wherefore, that we are justified by FAITH ONLY is a most wholesome 
doctrine, and very full of comfort, as more largely is expressed in the Homily 
of Justification." 

To be obtained at the Odice of the Church Association, 14, Buckingham Street, 
Ktranrl. London ^y.C., at 2(/ pt-r dozen, or Is per 100. 
4th. Thousand.] 




Faith ? or The Sacraments ? 

Ey the rev. J. B. AYADDINGTON, 

Vicav of Low Moor, Clitheroe, Lancashire ; Author nf Gospel Tracts, Catechiams, die. 

" What must I do to be saved ? " 

" Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved." — Acts xvi. 
30, 31. 

jpn rpyV/ HE Gkeat QiKSTiox for all who are anxious to escape 

the wrath due to their sins, is this : — 




i, ;*-*^ Now this is just the point of the great controversy 

between the Church of Rome and the Protestant 
Chuiches ; between Evang-elicals and High Chui-chmen (Sacer- 

Let us consider this vital question — m liicli is one of life and 
death, yea, of eternal life and eternal death to precious souls — 
Avith till' Bible in our hands. 

JIoiv is a saving interest in the vicarious sufferings of the Great 
Siv-Bearer to he obtained and continued? 

Through eai'thly priests, and rites performed and sacrifices 
offei-ed by them ? or dii-ect from Him Who is both Priest and 
Sacrifice ? 

Is it through THEIR ministrations or HIS ? 
To put it plainly, Are the Sacraments or is Faith the Divinely 
appointed channel through which the Salvation purchased by 
the Saviour's Blood is received by an anxious soul ? 

The Church of England states emphatically in Article XI. Of 
the Justification of Aran : "We are justified BY FAITH ONLY." 
In the Jlomihj of the Salvation of Mankind, by only Christ 'iw 
Saviour, 2 Part, we read : '• By Faith only, we obtain remission 
of our sins."' In the Homily of the Death and Passion of I'ur 
Saviour Christ, 2 Part, we read: "Almighty GoD . . . h;;rh 
also oi'dained a certain mean, whereby we may take fruit and 

profit to our souls' healtli. What mean is that ? Forsooth it 
is Eaith. . . . John iii. 6. Here is the mean, whereby we 
must apply the fruits of Christ's death unto our deadly wound 
Here is the mean, whereby we must obtain eternal life ; namely, 
FAITH. Rom. x. 10 ; Acts xvi. 31 ; John xx. 31." 

But in a question of such vital consequence we must not trust 
to any man or creed, but must go to the Fountain head of all 
truth — The Word of God Himself. (Acts xvii. 11 ; 2 Tim. iii. 15. 
See Article VI.) There we find no uncertain sound, for salva- 
tion is clearly stated (Eph. ii. 8) to be "BY GRACE "—God's 
free, unmerited, loving-kindness to guilty sinners ; " THROUGH 
FAITH," or by simply trusting, as did the jailor at Philippi 
and the dying thief on the cross, to the merits and promises of 
an Almighty Saviour. (Heb. x. 14. See John iii. 14-18, 36; 
V. 24 ; Acts xiii. 38, 39 ; xvi. 30, 31 ; Rom. iii. 28 ; Gal. ii. 20.) 

Dear Reader, — Do you now see that Salvation — j^^^'^^o"^ ^^^ 
acceptance — must be received direct from CHRIST, not from 
the priest ? Through FAITH, and therefore not through the 
sacraments or priestly ministrations ? 

The moment that you are led by the Spirit to give up all 
trust in ceremonies, ministers, or your own merits, and trust 
only in Christ and His "finished" work, eternal salvation is 
youi's. (John iii. 14; v. 24; Rom. viii. 14-17.) 

Then will you find it a great refreshment, and esteem it your 
high privilege to draw near with a contrite and thankful heart 
to your Lord's Table, taking the Bread and Wine in grateful 
remembrance of His death upon the cross, when He suffered in 
your stead ; by faith realizing His blessed presence in your 
soul — that faith confirmed, as well as grace increased, by means 
of that sacred ordinance in which we " shew the Lord's Death 
till He come." (1 Cor. xi. 26.) 

Note well that the chief point of difference is not ceremonies, ornaments, 
or vestments — important when used to symbolize doctrine, and dangerous 
when they distract the attention from the Word of God, or come between the 
soul and the great object of its faith, CHRIST. " There is danger in our day, 
that the touch of the Sacraments may be put instead of the touch of the 
Saviour by the soul through faith. The city may have no water if the 
aqueduct, however beautiful its arches, does not reach as far as the reservoir 
out of which only the water comes." 

To he obtained at the Ollic* of the CnuRcn Association, 14, Buckingham Street, 
Strand. London, W.C., at 2d per dozen, or Is per 100. 
4tli Thousand J 

Princeton Theological Seminary Libraries 

1 1012 01234 3028